Abbott's Freedom Wars risks collateral damage

'Freedom Wars'. The title of Tony Abbott's speech on behalf of the Institute of Public Affairs this week was a bold declaration in itself.

Is that where we're at? war? There's a pattern of rhetoric here, a line of engagement borrowed from the Howard years. Culture wars, speech wars: the same battle, a pitched encounter between unassuming, but doughty defenders of everyman and a high-minded, censorious, politically correct "elite".

In his speech Tony Abbott cited Andrew Bolt as his wronged champion of free speech, a man brought down by correctness and the "Orwellian" excesses of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Argues Mr Abbott: "If it's alright for David Marr, for instance, to upset conservative Christians, in his attempt to have them see the error of their ways, why is it not alright for Andrew Bolt to upset activist Aboriginals to the same end?"

If elected, he goes on, "The Coalition will repeal section 18C in its current form."

This is the portion of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 that Justice Bromberg of the Federal Court found Andrew Bolt had transgressed in his now fabled judgment in Eatock v Bolt of September last year.

Ever since, Bolt has repeatedly claimed that he is constrained from discussing issues of race and identity. His has become a cause celebre ... a little oddly perhaps. It's probably fair to say that for Andrew Bolt to complain of curbs to his right to free speech is a fairly self-evident absurdity, given the cross-platform media acreage at his disposal in any given week.

The other point against Bolt's claim to be a poster boy for free speech is in the detail of the Federal Court judgment against him in the case brought by Pat Eatock. This is a portion of the summary of Justice Bromberg's judgment.

Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times dispute that the messages that Ms Eatock claims were conveyed by the articles, were in fact conveyed. They deny that any offence was reasonably likely to be caused and also that race, colour or ethnic origin had anything to do with Mr Bolt writing the articles or the Herald & Weekly Times publishing them. They also say that - if Ms Eatock should establish those elements which she needs to satisfy the Court about - their conduct should not be rendered unlawful, because it should be exempted or excused. For that purpose, they rely on section 18Dof the Racial Discrimination Act.

Section 18D exempts from being unlawful, conduct which has been done reasonably and in good faith for particular specified purposes, including the making of a fair comment in a newspaper. It is a provision which, broadly speaking, seeks to balance the objectives of section 18Cwith the need to protect justifiable freedom of expression.

That section, 18D, is the key. The Racial Discrimination act specifically seeks to protect the idea of free speech in this clause. As Justice Bromberg says:

Freedom of expression is an essential component of a tolerant and pluralistic democracy. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act exempts from being unlawful, offensive conduct based on race, where that conduct meets the requirements of section 18D and may therefore be regarded as a justifiable exercise of freedom of expression.

Bolt's problem, says the judge, stem from:

... the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language and that as a result, the conduct of Mr Bolt and HWT is not justified in the manner required by section 18D of the RDA.

This, then, is not an argument around the freedom to express a view, rather it's an argument round the possibility that the law might curtail that freedom if the view expressed is founded in cynical dishonesty, disqualifications under the act from the protection of fair comment. The same protection that exists, for example, under defamation law.

The solution is simple enough: as the Prime Minister would advise in another context, "Don't write crap".

Strange, in this week of heightened free speech awareness, that a brouhaha should arise over a Facebook page filled with a collection of misjudged, inflammatory, oafish and no doubt offensive images grouped under the heading "Aboriginal Memes".

The page features a series of LOLcat-like meme images, the most anodyne of which suggests that while Aboriginal people might be 0.5 per cent of the population, they receive 60 per cent of all welfare payments. Another features an image of Coon cheese. You get the drift.

There are online petitions, no small amount of stridently campaigning Twitter outrage and a stubborn reluctance on the part of Facebook to do anything about the offending page.

Whether the page falls foul of Facebook's own terms of use is arguable, it would almost certainly be the sort of publication that might attract the stern disapproval of Australia's Racial Discrimination act.

A senior solicitor involved in the successful Andrew Bolt racial discrimination case says US social networking giant Facebook has broken Australian law by hosting a controversial page dedicated to vilifying Aboriginal people.

Joel Zyngier, a senior associate with Holding Redlich, toldCrikeythis morning the site appears to be breach of section 18C of theRacial Discrimination Act that prohibits an act that "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" on the grounds of race.

Just the sort of thing, we can only assume that would be given a new lease on life by an Abbott Government's professed intention to repeal that section of the Act following the precedent set in the silencing of Bolt.

If anything, the Aboriginal Memes page would be an even clearer case of the sort of freedoms that change would seek to protect.

Jonathan Green is a former editor of The Drum and presenter ofSunday Extraon Radio National. View his full profile here.

Comments (427)

Joe:

09 Aug 2012 7:31:13am

Abbott should be very careful. He might repeal laws that is politically good for himself and the LNP now, but, what if those repeals laws work against him?

Imagine, Abbott gets the PM in a landslide in 2013 and Gillard is history. Who does all the attention go on then especially if Australia is being run very conservatively? Suppose, some extreme Leftists decide the use the fact that the laws you describe are repealed to put up facebook pages that claim outrageous things about the right. I think that Abbott should think carefully before he makes promises that he might not keep given the political mileage he got from Gillard's supposed broken promise when she brought in a Carbon trading scheme and stupidly called it a tax?????

Argus Tuft:

09 Aug 2012 9:19:07am

Yes, Mr Abbott needs to be very careful that he doesn't potray himself as a committed 'red-neck'. He would be better off to do some 'refreshers' on how he should be portraying himself to be a committed Christian (i.e. acting as Jesus would). Because he ain't anything like one at present.

It is too late for Bolt, as he has been portraying himself as a red-neck for as long as one can remember, which is a shame because it means that any good points he may wish to make are tainted. But the IPA should also be careful it doesn't align itself as a 'red-neck' organisation.

Red-necks should be aware that the class of conservative elites (to which red-necks may feel they would be welcomed as members) are a very exclusive and rare breed. You'll be chewed up and spat out by those elites in whatever manner they feel benefits them.

mick:

Should you be allowed to flame other members of the community like this?

Would Abbott and Bolt be offended by your inflammatory and constant use of the term rednecks in describing them?

Sure, but that have big aggats and though offended, will not attempt to silence you, like you would like them to be

It's going to be funny when you are ruled by a rednecks, and have a redneck PM and be surrounded by the majority of Australians who voted for the redneck PM, since by your definition, they will all be rednecks as well

You'll be in the minority, but of course, will join the herd around that time and ...

Rubens Camejo:

In the mind of people with a degree of education and empathy for others a redneck is an abominable creature.

Youve heard of ADSL2+? Its ADSL on steroids, right?

A redneck is a racist +

There is no way to argue against this and anyone that defends the right of people to vilify others, especially for political purposes is just as vacuous an individual as Mr Abbott is proving to be in defending Andrew Bolt and his rant against those people.

The most reprehensible thing about Mr Abbotts defence of Mr Bolt is the fact that he ignores the fact that the court found his article was based on erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language. By any measure, that is indefensible.

Mr Abbott, in defending Mr Bolts and anyone else that wishes to publish opinions and express themselves in such a manner, is merely appealing to the same or similar elements that Howard did with his We will decide speech. He is appealing to racists, xenophobes and intolerant people.

The he would do so for political capital is an indictment of his character. Those people would love nothing better that to be openly able to refer to brands of cheese, the shape of peoples eyes and the headwear that some of our citizens wear or the type of animals they believe they use for transport.

That is NOT the kind of society we need to create. If it means limiting the freedom of speech of some, then so be it. Freedom of speech should not mean freedom to incite hatred or the vilification of people especially when erroneous facts are used to stress a point.

There is nothing wrong with questioning or discussing ethnic, religious or any other group as to their motives and intentions. None the less those discussions should be fair and provide the opportunity for others to have their say. Assertions of mal-intent, as Mr Bolts article implied, when not based on facts and associating those with race, should not be part of freedom of speech.

Mr Abbott ought to think twice because it behoves a potential PM to want to lead a country we can ALL be proud of, not a country where the very loud, hate-filled voices are the ones most often heard.

Owsley Stanley:

Pegaso:

09 Aug 2012 12:28:57pm

Malcolm Turnbull is on the conservative side of politics as is Arthur Sidodenis, no one would classify them as rednecks ,they certainly dont qualify in the way Tony Abbott,Sophie Mirabella do.Abbott and Mirabella would fit right in with the US Republican /Tea Party group.Abbott's star will begin to fall the moment he becomes PM.We wont be ruled by rednecks if the conservatives gain Govt,there are enough intelligent people there who sort the wheat from the chaff.We thought that John Howard was a divisive force in Australia,wait till you see Tony Abbott in action.Rednecks shouldnt be silenced or made illegal,they serve a good purpose in highlighting the intelligent, fair minded people in Parliament like Turnbull,Tony Windsor,Rob Oakshott

creme brulee:

09 Aug 2012 12:44:20pm

The answer to all of your questions, Mick, is No.

However, whether red-neck or red hair or just plain red politics, nobody should be able to tell lies about someone else in their community, especially when they can broadcast those lies widely, and especially when the purpose of those lies is to generate hatred and anger at those individuals.

That is my opinion. If you don't agree, that is fine. But I won't stand Andrew Bolt and people like him hiding behind some fake right to free speech (a right that is not recognised in the Australian Constitution) to vent hatred and abuse based on outright lies.

maus:

09 Aug 2012 1:23:39pm

Where was the hatred? Pretty fine line to call it abuse as well i believe. Everyone has different standards and to set the standard at the lowest or most precious does me no favors nor most people in the country.

Argus Tuft:

09 Aug 2012 1:45:52pm

Thankyou Pegaso & Creme brulee,

Your two replies together pretty well sum up anything I could have sent to Mick. Just one thing to add for Mick though:-

A lot of people used to regard me as a 'redneck' and some probably still do. I have a few 'redneck' friends and colleagues and they are really good fun people. But that doesn't excuse people like Bolt & Abbott from promulgating their extreme views from their positions of 'high influence' on the populous.

grega:

09 Aug 2012 1:24:01pm

come on Mick be honest redneck equals racist, bogan and feral.call a spade what it is do not try and hide behind an american term for exactly what it is.Dense and easily led is also an apt description but i do not believe the majority of australians are in that tribe only a vocal minority.grega

Rubens Camejo:

09 Aug 2012 4:15:41pm

Pauline Hanson proved there were a million voters around Australia that were prepared to vote for redneck policies. Howard brought them into the Liberals' cam with is boat policies and Abbott is trying to keep them inhouse.

Of course he'd want them to be vocal becuase there are probably another million out there that would speak up if they felt emboldened to do so. That's a lot of votes!

Samuel:

09 Aug 2012 9:22:19am

On the other hand...if the Government gets all these regulatory powers regarding "suitable persons" running media organisations and can appoint members to a council that will "right the wrongs of the media" who's to say an Abbott government won't use that to their benefit?

Curious party:

maus:

09 Aug 2012 9:36:00am

Are you telling me Joe that if Abbott does not change the laws then the left wont claim outrageous things against him or the right. Methinks no matter what he does the left will be making fun of him. Even some of the right as i know i enjoy a good joke. Unless it causes offence of course as we are all very precious darlings now it seems. (No offence intended to precious darlings).

So you see, conservatives are tolerant, lefties are not, not at all, go look at some of the bitter and nasty leftie websites on Abbott, Bolt and others, they are poison, have a look at the twitter feeds of some of the darlings of the left, all poisonous and bilious stuff

What should Tony Abbott do about them all when he gets into power

nothing

You do not understand conservatives historically, it is always the left who bring in the rules, the regulations the knock on the door in the middle of the night, as they head for totalitarianism

donna:

Bob the builder:

09 Aug 2012 11:51:11am

As far as i can tell nazis were nationalist socialists. Knowing germans from the era the nazis were all about creating jobs by building roads and making guns, plus getting "rid" of jewish people and taking over their businesses and putting there mates in them. This is more like socialism than right wing. The germans i know said they got nothing from the government until the nazis then they got lots of things as long as you agreed with them.....a familiar sounding story. Nasty people the nazis, nasty national socialists.

max headroom:

sig_oct:

09 Aug 2012 12:11:23pm

On the old political scale, yes they were. However, the current political scale, while still being from left to right, is no longer a straight line. It is now a bent horseshoe shape the two ends of which only just fails to touch. The difference between the extreme left and the extreme right is one of semantics only.

Gr8Ape:

Lindsay:

09 Aug 2012 12:18:45pm

So would you see the move to rational economics being good or bad? Would appear that the major changes within the Australian economy were deregulation, floating of the $A, the superannuation scheme, the commencement of the free trade agreement and were all bad things.. you must because those were all labor inititiatives.

rob1966:

libertarian:

09 Aug 2012 2:09:57pm

Wrong. The Nazi's were extreme socialists. The similarities between Hitler and Stalin were far greater than their differences. Two very nasty lefty's. The attack on freedom of speech always starts out as being a necessary good. Any sane person would realize that freedom of speech should be defended to the absolute as the bad that comes with freedom of speech is far outweighed by the good. Governments come and go, however they should never create legislation that conflicts with freedom of speech. Such legislation is in fact illegal. Bolt did not incite nor threaten. He simply gave an opinion, and the government is therefore guilty of persecuting a citizen. Thomas Jefferson warned people that they would need to be vigilant in protecting such thing against the treachery and tyranny of government. People who believe that bits and pieces of freedom can be traded off for a perceived greater good are simply insane.

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 4:04:50pm

'libertarian', if you read a little history, you'd know that Hitler built the concentration camps, originally, not for Jews and gypsies, but for "communists and Marxist functionaries". If you knew anything of the Spanish Civil War, you'd know that Hitler sided with the conservative nationalist, Franco, against the social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists.

I guess you think Nazis were "socialist" just because the acronym they used contained the word "socialist"? In which case, you must think the Democratic Republic of Congo and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) were both democratic?

Tiresias:

09 Aug 2012 4:54:08pm

No one is attacking 'freedom of speech'. But we have to understand that there are limitations on 'freedom of speech', on what can be said, just as there are limtations on the 'freedom to drive'. Especially if what is said is patently untrue, is clearly a lie, and is hurtful to people.

Bolt was not admonished for his 'freedom of speech', but for his hurtful inaccuracy. That is why Abbott's support of Bolt in that instance is a misrepresentation of the truth.

As for arguing about whether Nazis are right or left wing, George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' showed us that, pig or human, left or right, both are capable of being totalitarians.

Marcus:

09 Aug 2012 2:52:07pm

Hitler joined the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (the nazis) presumably because he felt that it's twin ideologies of nationalism and socialism were most aligned to his own national and socialist views.

There was nothing right wring or conservative about the nazi party.

Mussolini was in the Italian Socialist party before he left and formed his own fascist party.

Spinebill:

09 Aug 2012 3:57:45pm

Dictators are in a class of their own, it dosnt matter what their roots were, left or right, dictators are always bad.

But in the last 40 years the right wing redneck corporate sector have specialized in turning left wing govts into rightwing govts, cause they fit into dictatorships more easily. Dictatorships are easier/cheaper to corrupt for profit. Only one decision maker.

Howard had quite a dose of dictatorship, Rudd a bit as well, Gillard is collegiate ( the opposite to dictator) and Abbot - 'The Leader' has all the hallmarks of dictator.

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 10:36:09am

"the conservatives are not as precious and overly regulatory as the left are"?

Oh? Didn't Michigan Republicans just ban two Democrats from speaking in the House of Representatives because one Democrat said the word 'Vagina' and the other Democrat dared to suggest an anti-abortion bill be amended to "ban men having vasectomies unless the procedure was needed to save their lives"?

And didn't the commercial networks just ban a Get Up ad?

And didn't Philip Ruddock attempt to ban books?

And didn't the editor-in-chief of The Australian recently attempt to shut Julie Posetti up by threatening her with legal action for an accurate tweet?

mick, I think you'll find there are elements from both "left" and "right" who can be a little precious sometimes, so don't make out only one side is the villain here.

And when you laughingly say " it is always the left who bring in the rules, the regulations the knock on the door in the middle of the night" you're obviously oblivious to Howard's 2005 Sedition Laws, and the Terror Laws that made it a crime punishable by 5 years to even unknowingly speak to somebody who was later found to be a terrorist?

I did not say only one side was the villain, I am saying as ever, the left are always full scale to one side, whichever they have picked that is fashionable, and the conservatives are guided more by principle - it does not equate to them being opposite which is always where you end up

All your examples try to prove that conservatives are as bad as the left, but opposite on the scale - they are not, this is your inevitable stance and position, and it is my role to point this out to you as my contribution to your education and emerging maturity

FreeGuy:

09 Aug 2012 10:43:41am

Mick, I don't think totalitarianism is the preserve of the left. Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet... it comes in all guises. It is the preserve of extremists, both left and right.

To attack an individual public figure with a joke Facebook page or website could perhaps be excused as freedom of political expression. Putting yourself in the public's hands as a politician or commentator opens your performance to public comment.

Vilifying a minority group is a very different thing. It would be unreasonable for people who hate John Howard to pick on deaf people (he was deaf in one ear), or people who hate Alan Jones to pick on gay people.

MD:

09 Aug 2012 10:48:52am

Not "always the left". There are any number of non-left wing totalitarians that led to the Arab Spring, to South American police states, to African repressiveness. You have the free and clear right to say otherwise, but as a factual assertion, your statement falls short.

SG Warren:

09 Aug 2012 11:51:24am

I think Clint Eastwood said it best when he said "If you go far enough to the Left you meet the idiots from the Right coming the other way."

Any belief structure taught dogmatically eventually leads to repression. As soon as you lose the ability to realise your opinion may actually be wrong it's just a small step before you decide that must mean everyone else is wrong.

Lindsay:

09 Aug 2012 11:50:13am

Not so sure if the left has the knock on the door all to itself nor is a totalitarian government always left. Just ask the people in Chile, Argentina, Nazis Germany, Columbia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Uruguay,Uganda, Venezuela etc what their lovely little Right Wing Parties did in the middle of the night. Any Government that seeks to rule by fear is distasteful , any Governemnt that allows racism to exist is lowering the economic output, hinders development and creates fear. The far right wing Jocks are not exactly sensitive chaps just listen to the stuff they incite, Hadley and Jones take a bow. Alan has his chaff bag for anyone he disagrees with politically. Journalism like law is based on fact. Its about time facts started to get in the way of sensationalism and thats what we have now.

creme brulee:

"it is always the left who bring in the rules, the regulations the knock on the door in the middle of the night, as they head for totalitarianism"

Sorry to introduce Godwin's law, but the Hitler's Nazis and Mussolini's fascists were not of the left by any stretch of the imagination.

For more modern reference, you could look at the Taliban and blasphemy laws in Pakistan or else the current situation in Russia, where Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church are combining to crush free speech in Russia through their treatment of the girls in Pussy Riot and the alleged crime of 'hooliganism' for doing a satirical dance routine in a Cathedral. I'm not aware of the Russian Orthodox Church being a front for the left either.

This is the problem with propagating lies, like the one you nave been propagating, Mick.

PeterT:

09 Aug 2012 1:17:59pm

Messrs Abbott and Bolt are big boys who have the access to spread their views far and wide every day. Any targets of their derision with less profile and less access to the means of dissemination either wear the offense or can, currently, seek redress where a law may provide necessary protection and they have the means to mount their case.

I am interested particularly in the consequences of anything they have said that you found offensive, "but so what"? Did the offensive statements target you? Did the offensive statements add fuel to the fire of racial vilification against you and cause you to feel the ostracism by sections of Australian society against you had increased as a result of what they broadcast? Or did you just feel the statements were offensive because they were not necessarily true of all the people they were likely to offend? Perhaps you may have even felt some sympathy for those who did not reflect the statements being made, but would be caught up and tarred with the same brush and not have the means to reply?

After all, the effects of Fukushima "will be zero", only fifty people died as a result of Chernobyl, despite the state of the economy there is a wrecking ball destroying it and Whyalla is definitely becoming a ghost town, "but so what"?

RobW:

09 Aug 2012 2:14:19pm

"it is always the left who bring in the rules, the regulations the knock on the door in the middle of the night, as they head for totalitarianism"

Both sides have form here and have their pet laws and rules that they like to impose on us, although the truth is they actually agree on most things. As for the oppressive left, I don't see too many calling for mandatory sentencing, or three strikes laws. Many on the left (and right) also had real concerns about the scope and nature of the anti terror laws.

Plus how long will it be before the police will be knocking on people's doors (literally) to enforce tougher copyright laws- which I assume many conservatives support? I actually reluctantly support stronger copyright enforcement too, but enforcing these laws could be very, very ugly and have real consequences for people's privacy etc.

Mark James:

OUB, I'd say the principle of freedom of speech should, ideally be beyond inane notions of "left" and "right".

We could all find plenty of anecdotal historical evidence of some left-wing or right-wing regimes introducing draconian limits to free-speech.

But I would say free-speech is more important than the parisan divide.

My problem with Abbott's address is he is attempting to make the issue partisan by rhetorically positing the Coalition and the defenders of free-speech and the Labor and the Greens at censors.

All he's going to achieve by this (apart from getting News Ltd even more onside and enlivening his base) is to co-opt a principle for partisan ends and, in doing so, actually shave off overt support for that prinicple.

I actually agree with Abbott that 18C should be repealed. But I don't believe it should be repealed unless the Defamation laws are also repealed. If we're going to have a "war" for free-speech, let's actually have a war, not a rhetorical skirmish that seeks only to divide one side of politics from the other.

libertarian:

09 Aug 2012 11:00:46am

What are you talking about? They exist now. There is nothing illegal about having your opinion of Abbott. If you say something that is not true in order to damage somebody and do it in a way that has effect, you can be sued for liable. A completely different thing to free speech. They didn't use liable against Bolt as they would have had to prove what he said was untrue. They used dodgy pieces of legislation instead that had an extremely low burden of proof and were poorly worded in the first place.

M goes Viral:

Applaudanum:

09 Aug 2012 1:34:25pm

A facebook page or blog attacking a conservative government has nowhere near the armoury we see of the mainstream media attacking the current government. Such blogs and web pages criticising conservatives exist, yet they exist in an ocean of similarly weighted, yet contrasting commentary. They are effectively drowned out in the clamour of competing voices. The broadcast media, on the other hand, have a privileged status because they are in the main stream of comment or information. Their voice is louder. It breaks through the din. A conservative government only needs to fear the mainstream media when the government intends to do something the media doesn't like, such as imposing tighter regulations or asking for greater accountability. He won't bite the hand that feeds him.

tonyw:

09 Aug 2012 4:13:46pm

Hmm... if I remember a certain Drum personality had a "John Howard pinata" proudly displayed on his own website.

We have various Leftie commentators accusing the Howard of "racism, cruelty, etc" because of the Pacific Solution (and now it is okay because the ALP are proposing a variation). To say the media gave the Howard Government a free ride is wrong. This Government is getting what the Howard Government, the only differences are the Howard Government moved on from the criticism, the Gillard/Rudd one seeks to muzzle the media.

Macumazan:

09 Aug 2012 7:33:44am

The problem is that truth is no longer a defence under this act. Why the ABC is not leaping to Bolt's sie is beyond me. The wheel will turn and ABC reporters will be restrained just as Bolt was. There are now topics that CANNOT be discussed because they might give offence. While some writers obviously do not see a danger in this, it is for all that, one of our ancient liberties that has been taken away.

Zoltaen:

09 Aug 2012 9:01:30am

Did we just read different articles?

The whole point of Section 18D is that if you are operating in good faith, and believe that you are telling the truth, then you're covered under 'fair use' and so are not breaking the law. The problem in the Bolt case is that he was "cynically dishonest", and so was not protected by fair use.

Shebs:

09 Aug 2012 10:48:59am

You and Zoltaen miss the very point:

Things like "writing in good faith" are mutable, subject to political and legal whimsy, such as Political Correctness. Truth, or the ability to express an opinion is made second to PC dictates. Note that Conservatives may disagree and dislike your Leftie licence to insult, but unlike you, we would rather you speak freely than use lawfare to silence you.

feeding on quill:

09 Aug 2012 11:09:46am

"Dishonesty" is a constant, - nothing whimsy or mutable about it mate. It's dishonest.

It's even easier to establish than "honesty", because there can be "lies of omission". - eg when Abbott is asked whether he agrees with the regulator on power price trends - he talks about the carbon tax.

PS And a hint :- just because Abbott and Bolt are AngloSaxon doesn't mean that their lies are classified as Whilte Lies.

Miowarra:

09 Aug 2012 11:38:38am

Shebs protested: "...Things like "writing in good faith" are mutable, subject to political and legal whimsy..."

And that, Shebs, is why we have learned judges empanelled, who are trained in impartiality, who are not elected for political bias (as the Americans do), who know the law, who frequently discuss legal implications with each other and whom we entrust with the power to make those judgements.

bobtonnor:

09 Aug 2012 12:35:10pm

good faith is legally definable under the act, its not about PC or political whimsy, read the article and then the section of the act and then the definitions in the act, if you can be bothered then go and look at which cases were cited in the judgement, cant be bothered? it looks like you and tony share some common ground.

GregC:

09 Aug 2012 12:58:45pm

Shebs - your line "Truth, or the ability to express an opinion" appears to imply that these two are the same thing. Truth = the true or actual state of a matter. An opinion expressed can be truthful or untruthful.

Reinhard:

09 Aug 2012 1:33:53pm

Shebs, it was NOT in good faith to imply that Larissa Behrendt "has also worked as a professional Aborigine ever since leaving Harvard Law School, despite looking almost as German as her father." when Behrendt's father was actually born in Australia to an Aboriginal mother, and her grandfather, despite his German name came from England.

Nor was it in good faith to claim that Anita Heiss made a decision to be Aboriginal which was lucky, given how its helped her career and that she had won plum jobs reserved for Aborigines at Koori Radio, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and Macquarie Universitys Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies.

What Mr Bolt failed to mention is Heiss was an established writer and highly qualified with a PhD in Media and Communication, and that in fact none of the jobs he mentioned were actually reserved or identified Aboriginal positions, and the Koori Radio role was actually voluntary and unpaid.

Andy:

09 Aug 2012 10:57:19am

Unfortunately, he's not stupid, just dishonest. People will still ignore the point of this article. it's much more fun to cry 'supression.' The point of Section 18D is basically do not label 'fiction' as 'non-fiction' and expect to get away with it.

max headroom:

09 Aug 2012 11:57:37am

yes but the learned judge in his wisdom said "inflammatory and provocative language" was a large part of the reason he found against Bolt not just lazy journalism. So in fact he is making it a crime to use inflamatory or provocative language in a blog! Now to me thats wrong on all counts.

Applaudanum:

09 Aug 2012 1:49:49pm

You shouldn't be too alarmed. Inflammatory and provocative language was a large part of the reasoning against Bolt but it wasn't a separate charge. It's not as though the judge said 'you published lies AND you used provocative language'. But rather 'you published lies using provocative language'. There is a difference. Presenting outright lies in a calm, self-deprecating manner has a very different effect than the same lies presented provocatively.

Cap'n:

09 Aug 2012 9:07:22am

Rubbish. "Truth" does not include deliberate misrepresentations or deliberately inflammatory comments based on those misrepresentations. That is what Bolt did and he got called out on it and couldn't hack when someone stood up to what was verging on bullying given his access to media power (that was denied his targets, who had to rely on the courts for redress).

Poiter:

09 Aug 2012 10:06:12am

truth is a poor defence

look at the carbon crackdown, if you voice that in truth, but not with all the figgures they threaten (and now prosecute) you. it's easier just to stay silent and not take the risk the turth defence falls over

JohnnoH:

Wirewolf:

09 Aug 2012 9:28:18am

But that is the point. Bolt was found to have played fast and loose with the truth, making a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations and assertions without sufficient evidence to support his case. He could have gotten away with saying that some people claim aboriginality in order get benefits, and relatively few people would reject the idea out of hand; but when he named specific individuals and accused them of having done so in order to obtain financial advantage by virtue of their race, he crossed the line into personal attacks without legitimate basis in fact. Bolt was brought unstuck by his own sloppy journalism and habitually tenuous relationship with the truth.

barsnax:

09 Aug 2012 9:29:50am

Macumazan, your statement "there are subjects that CANNOT be discussed" is plain wrong. Any subject can be discussed and debated. Bolt's problem was his article was factually wrong and racist under our current laws. The very fact that Abbott is prepared to change the law to protect his right wing allies in the press should be much more worrying to all Australians.

Jason:

09 Aug 2012 9:43:08am

Which particular liberties are in danger? The ones where you can write any old BS without a shred of truth? Bolt has his opinions and he's free to express them, he just has to get his facts right, especially when writing about 'touchy' subjects. The judge made it fairly clear that Bolt made factual errors. If he had bothered to check his"facts" then it was apparent to all involved that he would have won the case.. It's contemptible that Abbott would defend Bolt on this issue, in reality he defending lying. It proves that he isn't a deep thinker and can't comprehend complex issues.

libertarian:

09 Aug 2012 2:14:49pm

It was not a liable case. Whether or not what he wrote was true was irrelevant to the case. The judge said he could write about such things, just not in the way he did which he said vilified a group of people based upon race. This needed to be tested in the High Court as Bolt would have won. Expensive and lengthy process though.

Edge Hillbilly:

harry:

09 Aug 2012 7:41:00am

Another poor example of "scholarship" from Jonathan Green.No Jonathan, citing the Aboriginal Memes as examples of what Abbott is talking about is just a pathetic attempt to replace the actual baseline, the Bromberg judgement on the Bolt case, with an extreme and directly racist piece.

The baseline is an article questioning whether grants available to Aborigines who face daily discrimination are being misdirected to people who identify as Aboriginal but would be indistinguishable from the majority population and face no discrimination. The errors "in fact" are so minor that they would not be subject to any other action other than a minor printed corrigendum.

That baseline is what we all now have to live under, not some other extreme example of racist chatter you have found on the internet that you need to use to make your "point".

Stuffed Olive:

Pete the gibberer:

09 Aug 2012 10:32:40am

harry, Andrew's article also held the complainants up to ridicule, which was not necessary to make his point. For a quality journal like the Herald Sun, this should not be allowed through to the keeper.

harry:

09 Aug 2012 12:16:04pm

SBS has aired a number of black aborigines making similar, but much more derogatory remarks about the welfare being directed at white Australians identifying as Aborigines.None of them are going to face the Racial Vilification Act ...

harry:

"Bolt claimed that specific people, that he named, had identified as Aboriginal for financial gain."

Several Black Aborigines are making the same claim.

"His statement was based Bolt poor journalism skills. That is he got his facts wrong."

Ignoring your poor grammar skills, it seems like his statement is an opinion based on his reading of the facts, rather than an objective fact in itself.

"He then used his false information as a basis to go on a racist diatribe."

I don't see any racism in the opinion that monies made available to Aborigines to help them overcome overt discrimination based on their appearance and their circumstances should not be diverted to people who are physically indistinguishable from the majority of Australians, who are raised in middle to upper class home environments and who don't face any disadvantage because of their upbringing.

Mr. Jordon:

Reinhard:

09 Aug 2012 6:48:38pm

Harry stop trying to change the facts of the case, Bolt's comments were not general, he identified people by name, and falsely accused them of taking advantage of their aboriginal heritage, such as: "MEET the white face of a new black race the political Aborigine." "Larissa Behrendt has also worked as a professional Aborigine ever since leaving Harvard Law School, despite looking almost as German as her father." FACT: Behrendt's father was actually born in Australia to an Aboriginal mother, and her grandfather, despite his German name came from England.

He also identified another, " Meet now Associate Professor Anita Heiss, who says shes a member of the Wiradjuri nation who prays to Biami, the tribes creator spirit. Heisss father was Austrian, and her mother only part-Aboriginal. Whats more, she was raised in Sydney and educated at Saint Claires Catholic College. She, too, could identify as a member of more than one race, if joining up to any at all was important. As it happens, her decision to identify as Aboriginal, joining four other Austrian Aborigines she knows, was lucky, given how its helped her career. Heiss not only took out the Scanlon Prize for Indigenous Poetry, but won plum jobs reserved for Aborigines at Koori Radio, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and Macquarie Universitys Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies."

Fact: Ms Heiss is an established writer and highly qualified with a PhD in Media and Communication, and none of the jobs he mentioned were actually reserved or identified Aboriginal positions, and the Koori Radio role was actually voluntary and unpaid.

Reinhard:

09 Aug 2012 12:34:17pm

"The errors "in fact" are so minor that they would not be subject to any other action other than a minor printed corrigendum."That was all that was required of Bolt in the end, yet in his arrogance he did substantially less than that...

Lindsay:

09 Aug 2012 1:11:52pm

Like most things in Politics, the detail is lost in the minutae of the argument. We concentrate on the inconsistencies in the small stuff and forget the larger portion. Its irrelevant what someone looks like but you draw a line suggesting that if someone looks similar to their peer group they will not be discrimminated against. Sorry but thats absolute bs. Tony is identifying himself with the Tea Party and the far right Republicans and in doing so risks alienating our major trading partner. In the same breath he is all for a fair press that at best is sensationalist and at worst is a gross distortion of fact. One should actually look at Tony's agenda and he is coming across as a far right wing racist but couches his language to confuse. If Rupert suddenly decided that Tony was not the amn and decided to send a few Journos to check out his life and report and sensationalise, I wonder whether he would have the same point of view.

MACK1:

Shannon:

09 Aug 2012 10:59:56am

Laws are written by drafters, working in some form of Parliamentary Counsel Office, under supervision from an instructing officer from the relevant department who is fulfilling the wishes of the minister, filtered through the experience of the people working in the department.Not too sure about the system for apointing judges myself.It's pretty easy to get involved in law making, you either work for the department, the minister, or get yourself into politics. And as the last election in Queensland showed, when the ruling party is unpopular enough, any bloody muppet can get into the house of reps.

Old Timer:

09 Aug 2012 1:56:23pm

I'll bet my last dollar that the 'knowledge' of your educated lunchtime colleagues was not from any legitimate verifiable source, but probably from some viral email doing the rounds of the ill-informed.

Sydneysider:

atomou:

09 Aug 2012 9:11:16am

Well, you can ask the editors of Pravda, if you like. They'll tell you exactly what is crap and what is fair and objective. They certainly have views about these qualities that are very similar to those of Abbott, Bolt and the rest of the conservative loud mouth shrill jocks.

Or you could ask a reasonable mortal if the views that 1+1=2 or that the Earth is flat, are truth or crap.

Greg:

lazarus:

09 Aug 2012 10:24:45am

As the right and loonier right control the commercial media it would be valid to assume the right decides what it wants to print and you have to go to the courts to ensure you receive justice because 9 times out of 10 they won't write a retraction.

Mike:

michael:

09 Aug 2012 10:19:04am

I decide.. for myself that is! we all do. In a democracy , we deserve every thing we get, be it government, TV progams , shock jocks, news and current affairs, and the press. they only exist because WE give them oxygen. Without readers, listeners, voters , readers or followers, they wouldn't survive.We only have OURSELVES and our collective stupidity and/or ignorance to blame

1of7billion:

09 Aug 2012 10:43:14am

'Who decides what is 'crap'?'

Who else, the reader. Consider all available truth, evidence, justice then do some research of your own. Use your reasoning powers. Ask your self questions. Who benefits most from kahChing based audience 'believing in' what is written be before them.

Yes, truth learned will be confronting. That's life so grow up and think for yourself as the empathic intelligent creature most of us actually are.

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 4:09:13pm

SueB, readers have little to do with the profitability of newspapers. The Australian, for instance, is losing something like $25 million a year. If readers alone were any guage of quality, The Australian would have folded years ago.

The newspapers tend to make more money through advertising and corporate partnerships than they do through people actually buying newspapers.

GregM:

09 Aug 2012 10:46:14am

Bolt wasn't pulled up for being wrong. He was pulled up for breaching a law and failing to meeting teh predefined defence contained in the law. The law specifically exempts 'fair comment in a newspaper' from section 18C, and the court found that Bolt's article wasn't a fair comment because of how it was written and that it was based on falsehoods - not just one thing or the other, but both.

And being wrong can be a crime - exceeding the speed limit, driving while over the legal limit, etc. But being wrong is only a crime when you are wrong in relation to a specific law, so not always.

MD:

09 Aug 2012 10:57:25am

Being wrong isn't a crime, but do you check if a ladder's got firm footing before you start climbing it? Bolt took the Wile E. Coyote step into space, and his double take had as much persuasiveness in the court as Wile E. has with gravity.

Andy:

09 Aug 2012 11:06:54am

it's not about being offended or having hurt feelings or being wrong. It's about expressing personal opinions about individuals or groups and dressing them up as fact with little-to-no research or just downright lies.

Colin :

09 Aug 2012 11:11:06am

"So being wrong is a crime now"

your hysterics aside, being wrong has always left you in danger of libel, esp if your claims damage someone elses reputation

are you suggesting if you are accused in front of your boss, family, friends and on the front page of the news right around the country as being a violent pedophile you will happily accept that as 'freedom of speech'?

you wouldnt want to 'legally pull up' someone who was going around saying that would you?

Circular:

09 Aug 2012 11:14:52am

I have been sickened by the Liberals playing fast and loose re race since the dredging of Australia's racist past for political gain by J Howard during the 'children overboard' episode. It worked for him and now we are going to reward his ideological successor for using the same bloody minded techniques. Call themselves a Liberal party - I don't think so.

Alan:

Fred:

09 Aug 2012 10:07:45am

Correction "telling the truth...." when it suits the rubish they are pushing. If the truth is that 0.5% of the population recieves over 60% of the welfare dollar and receives treatment that discriminates against the other 99.5% of the population then this fact must be allowed air time. The only way it can be called racist is if you want to protect this discrimination by silencing peoples right to justice.

colin:

hugh mungus:

10 Aug 2012 12:43:08am

It seems to me entirely appropriate that a very small percentage of the population receives most of the welfare. That is what welfare is for - a helping hand for people who are unable to look after themselves, either temporarily or more permanently.

The problem we have today is that 1/3rd of government expenditure is on welfare - $120 billion a year. Most of it given to people who are working.

It should NEVER be necessary to give welfare to those who have a full time job. Because this means you are paying one lot of public servants to take your money away, and another lot to give it back. Is that sensible? Does it strike you that this may be inefficient? Here's a thought - why not just pay less tax and cut out the middle man?

Elvis:

09 Aug 2012 9:06:58am

Just goes to show how 2 people can read the same article and come to completely different conclusions. I read it to say, you gotta get your facts right first and foremost - if you write "crap" you open yourself up. Of course Andrew never rights crap does he Damian?

oportoj:

09 Aug 2012 9:21:21am

Agreed. It amazes and saddens me that so many are prepared to go along with censorship and so few are prepared to stand up for freedom. Wake up fools; these tools or government control will soon be turned against you as well. Imagine ther "offence" that will be taken against the athieism which is oft expressed in this forum. You may despise Tony but you are giving him the tools to silence you.

tonyw:

09 Aug 2012 9:51:38am

I wonder what would have been the result if the Howard Government had been in power and instead of Bolt, say David Marr was in this situation? I am sure Mr Green would have looked at this in a different way

Mycal:

tonyw:

09 Aug 2012 4:07:16pm

Well, he seems to have provoked something in you.......and a whole article was written on him here on the Drum and countless buckets of bile are spilt every time he writes/says something. Didn't say he was right/accurate/well-researched though, just said he was interesting and thoought-provoking

GregM:

09 Aug 2012 10:10:10am

Tch. Jonathan Green has published his views on a page that allows (moderated) comments. Andrew Bolt publishes his views on pages that do not allow comments (as the cost of moderation was to expensive, supposedly). Who favours censorship again?

bill Door:

Peter Graham:

09 Aug 2012 7:49:40am

Well, if that most dishonest of politicians Conroy wants things removed from facebook, what is the obvious next step when we are all dependant on NBN Co, for our internet access?He already wants some newspapers taken to task because they print anti government articles.I think we are educated enough to realise when crap is crap, we don't need the ex communists to protect us from the idiots who publish this kind of rubbish. There is no need to protect us from Andrew or Mungo, we know they are political extremists just cut from different cloth. In most cases we read their articles, laugh and move on to more important things, like our poor performance in the Olympics.

George:

09 Aug 2012 7:54:40am

Surely if his speech is factually inaccurate attacking an individual then it is slander. Why do we need laws that deal with this issue if it is specifically about race? Do we need religious discrimination laws? or football team discrimination laws? Slander is slander, regardless of whom is slandered.

Harry:

09 Aug 2012 10:08:05am

In one sense I agree- apparently the action against Bolt could have been a defamation instead of under the RDA. However the RDA has a broader application. I think it has a positive influence on the whole. Do we really want to have people in the media intimidating, insulting or humiliating people because of their race? I would like to think we have grown past that as a society.

Jonno:

09 Aug 2012 12:54:32pm

It's true that we should have grown past that by now, but while the Bolt case could have been dealt with on a defamation basis, the plaintiffs chose to play the racist card. Why?

Is it that the mere mention of 'racist discrimination' bumps a news story a few ranks higher in a google search? Does a RDA case pay-out more than a Defamation case? Is it easier to get a legal win using RDA than Defamation?

Note I am not suggesting any of these are true or false, I just haven't been able to find any useful historical data on the topic, so I am just asking for info.

<Insert disclaimer to the effect that if anyone is offended I meant the entire post as a satire>

hugh mungus:

Peter Schmidt:

09 Aug 2012 8:00:29am

Jonathan, while what you write maybe true, we have absolutely no freedom in foreign policy. All the ABC is doing is repeating US and UK propaganda. E.g. in the Syrian war. I am very dissapointed in Newsradio (and many of my friends).

Kent Bayley:

09 Aug 2012 8:11:37am

Freedom of speech needs to be resurrected as political correctness was maximised by Paul Keating and we have entered a twilight zone of nonsense. Do the minority think that behind closed doors its stopped the jokes and opinions........no. In the end you cant legislate to control people and that's especially true in our democracy or whats left of it. I say good on Abbott for winding back a stupid over the top clause in the law and while your at it Mr Abbott make it illegal for any Australian government to borrow money to help other countries as that's a politically correct crime yet to be dealt with.

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 11:00:42am

"In the end you cant legislate to control people"?

Kent, why then did John Howard introduce anti-terror legislation?Why did George W. Bush introduce the Patriot Act? In fact, why does any government, legislate at all if laws have no effect on how people behave?

And why do companies spend $millions on copyright and patents if the laws governing these things do not modify people's behaviour?

Simon:

09 Aug 2012 11:23:37am

"Do the minority think that behind closed doors its stopped the jokes and opinions........no."

Maybe not, but it's helped to remove racist humour from the public arena. Think of like smoking: you're entitled to smoke in the privacy of your own home, where you're (presumably) not harming anyone else through your actions. In public, it's a different matter.

Kent Bayley:

09 Aug 2012 1:12:26pm

I note that the ABC and other stations regularly take Gods name in vain and blaspheme. Christians cop it as though the laws of anti discrimination don't exist. More importantly media use Christians as a blood sport and the proof is on air every night of the week. However Mohammad never gets a mention and if he did then its heresy. Why the double standards and why is it ok in our society?

hugh mungus:

What planet are you from? Or maybe the question should be what are you smoking? Legislation is mostly for the purpose of controlling people (and punishing them when they don't obey).

Legislation is the reason I don't get pissed and drive down the road at 220 kilometres an hour. Legislation is why I don't buy a gun and steal all your money. Legislation is the reason I don't track you down and punch you out for being an idiot. FFS, don't you get anything about living with other people?

Alpo:

09 Aug 2012 8:32:09am

Many thanks Jonathan for a most illuminating article. This just strengthens my conviction that the country is facing a rather serious peril for as long as Tony Abbott remains a potential Prime Minister. Regarding "freedom of information" he obviously seems of the opinion to shut down the voice of the voiceless, and allow those in possession of a big megaphone to freely deafen everybody else: the freedom to impose your will on others, in the security that no matter what you do or say you will be fine. The regulation of life in a Democracy is a necessity for the stability of society. And so, for every section 18C there is a section 18D. Repeal both and you have the libertarian ideal of no constraint... bettern known as: the law of the jungle. That's perfectly fine, of course.... if you are the lion!

MD:

09 Aug 2012 8:32:36am

Abbott's painting it a war, but Bolt's fought the only battle in the courts. No other prominent commentator has felt compelled to sail that close to the discrimination wind. So what is it that you want to get off your chest, Tony? Do you simply want 120 decibels of ideological distraction, blasted daily from the minarets of The Australian, with phalanxes of IPA reseaerch fellows running "Me too!" interference? That's a bleak future. Howard's government campaigned to get nipples off the covers of newsstand magazines because some people are offended by prominent exposure of nipples, but Abbott wants to give ideological and personal offensiveness billboard prominence, and we've got historical precedence for the material it'll tolerate. Back to the Conservative Future 2.

nunga:

09 Aug 2012 11:14:14am

What this all comes down to is Tony Abbott defending his mate that got caught out telling nasty racist lies. If Bolt had not printed the nasty racist lies he would not have faced the courts. Its sad that there are people in this country that defend this behaviour.

There is a lesson in this for all people, particularly those that have the privilege of having a wide public audience, don't print lies, don't allow your bigotry to over-ride your judgement.

Don't write crap about others, and you will never have to face the court charged with discrimination or defamation.

If you are a bigot and a liar, keep it among those that think the same as you, don't broadcast it across the nation. If this law means that bigotry and racist lies are kept behind closed doors, all the better for the country and the people.

Barry:

09 Aug 2012 12:30:59pm

No nunga. What this comes down to is the enabling of people to speak out against parasites milking the public purse under the cover of the racism suppression blanket they through over anyone that dares to demand equality.

M Ryutin:

09 Aug 2012 8:33:53am

Well what a lot of upset people about Tony Abbotts free speech debate. Yesterday we had a Drum author claim that speech wasnt targeted by the Section (even criticising Jonathan Holmes in the process for being misled on that point) while the Bolt case was all about speech, yet now we have this bit from Mr Green:-The Racial Discrimination act specifically seeks to protect the idea of free speech in this clause when it has arguably failed to do so. Even as the wording of the Soviet criminal codes did nothing to stop the terrible Gulag crimes, one only has to watch what it does to see how much weight to protecting free speech this clause actually delivers. Not much it seems to me.

As for the Facebook page he (and others) complain of, well, so what? I wouldnt dream of watching it as I would not watch Kath and Kim or the other working class attack-sites about Bogans. I dont object to holocaust deniers either, believing that facts crush their silly arguments and that the David Irvings of this world need to be attacked openly on their mistaken facts, rather than ban them from speaking. Speech bans in Weimar didnt stop prejudice.

No, free speech means taking the rough with the smooth:Facebook pages about Aborigines, the Holocaust or bogans.

lazarus:

09 Aug 2012 10:50:35am

"I dont object to holocaust deniers either, believing that facts crush their silly arguments and that the David Irvings of this world need to be attacked openly on their mistaken facts, rather than ban them from speaking. Speech bans in Weimar didnt stop prejudice."

No one is banning Bolt either, just pulling him up because he was factually incorrect. Getting redress for his factual inaccuracies through the courts was necessary because Bolt ans SMH both refused to write retractions when it was shown he was factually incorrect.

How is it that he is banned from speaking if he still has his newspaper column and TV show?

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 11:15:14am

I largely agree with your sentiments on free-speech M Ryutin, but I still think there are some grey areas with regard "absolute" free speech.

The example I'll give is taken from Uganda, so not relevant here as yet (and there are probably better examples available). But I think it serves as a precationary principle if we're advocating for "absolute" free speech.

On October 2010, a prominent newspaper in Uganda published the names (with photographs) of 100 homosexuals under the headline "Hang them".

Months later, one of those people (David Kato) was bludgeoned to death with a hammer.

Although there is no evidence to link the newspaper front-page with the murder, the case does raise a difficult question with regards the point at which we begin to value the freedom of an individual to live without the fear of death and persecution above the freedom of powerful interests to incite hatred.

One question: Would you have defended that newspapers' freedom to print that front page?

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 2:05:57pm

SueB, when we're talking about principles, such as the principles of free-speech, it is necessary to test the extremes or else we will legislate or repeal legislation without being able to imagine the consequences of our actions.

The example I gave from Uganda is an extreme example, as I acknowledged, but free-speech exists on a scale of 'no free speech to absolute free speech' and we really need to think about where on that scale (if anywhere) we legislate.

SueB:

09 Aug 2012 5:50:57pm

Surely free speech would only apply to that which is not illegal, or has no legal consequences already in place.

Thus, publishing a lie is defamatory and illegal.Thus, publishing incitement to kill is illegal.Thus, publishing an opinion about some people who self identify as aboriginal is considered illegal, because their feelings may be hurt.

The people who took Bolt to court should have sued for defamation if the facts were wrong.

People who are discriminated against in employment or access to rent or services because of their race have a case to take to court.

Harry:

09 Aug 2012 12:38:33pm

They never had the high ground, because the underlying ideology behind their position is communism, hence suppression of all dissenting voices. Just read carefully what the left say and watch their actions.

hugh mungus:

10 Aug 2012 1:12:47am

Of course, the most recent example of the suppression of free speech by the Government of Australia was when Howard and Downer shut down a small, peaceful demonstration by Falun Gong. They did so at the request of the communist Chines government.

Barry:

09 Aug 2012 12:27:14pm

Nice simplification. The fact is this racism crap has gone too far. Remember a few years ago when the NSW police commission was slandered as a racist because he simply stated the factual truth that at the time they had an Asian crime problem in Sydney. If he had a "white" crime problem, no one would have said anything if he stated it in a similar fashion as long as the facts supported the statement.

Simon:

"As for the Facebook page he (and others) complain of, well, so what? I wouldnt dream of watching it as I would not watch Kath and Kim or the other working class attack-sites about Bogans."

If you cannot see the difference between a 'send-up' (e.g. Kath & Kim) and an attack site, then I fear for your ability to negotiate the modern world. It comes down to respect: shows like Kath & Kim and 'The Castle' poke fun at 'bogan' attitudes and lifestyles, but they also take pains to represent their characters with genuine affection and dignity. The Facebook page in question does none of that.

Nick:

09 Aug 2012 10:31:33am

Peter,what we don't need is government deciding what can and can't be written.If you don't like what is being written by a particular newspaper you are free to not read it or make your own judgment about whether it is true or not.Or perhaps even respond as we are doing now. I want these freedoms kept intact and not have governments dictating what I can and can't say.This attack from the left is nothing but an attempt to silence its critics. Bolt may have been wrong but offending people is not in my view something that should be legislated against.

Philby:

09 Aug 2012 11:19:04am

You're absolutely right Nick, someone should be able to write and print anything they want on you, even if it is factually wrong, then are protected by freedom of speech. Let's say an ex of yours waht to post nasty incorrect details of how you perform in the sack. A great laugh I'm sure but not something you would want out there.

SueB:

No, Philby, no-one should be able to print lies. That's what defamation and slander laws are for. You should be able to sue for the defamation and slander, but not your hurt feelings.

If the government wants to stop defamation and slander, they should open the court system to be responsive, affordable and relevant to the general population. A few huge payouts by defamers and slanders would do the trick.

SmithW:

09 Aug 2012 2:46:59pm

What we need is freedom from the press and their agenda laden porky pies. The ocean of crap is the only ocean I can clearly see a defite rise in over my lifetime. We used to have to wade through it, now it's almost up to our bottom lip and for a fair few people, poor bastards, it has already submerged them and it's all they know and all they can feed on.

Not Pc:

09 Aug 2012 8:38:01am

Anyone who thinks we are not at war for freedom of speech has their head in the sand. Andrew Bolt is stopped dead in his tracks for upsetting minority groups and yet we all saw a small group of aboriginals openly burning and spitting on our flag in Canberra on national television without any fear what so ever of prosecution. A similiar comparison was in the Netherlands where a politician by the name of Geert Wilders was taken to trial for telling the truth about muslims in his country. Fortunately he won the trial but this is the type of war we are in, a war where anyone who doesn't like what you say can prosecute you even if your comments are the truth. If they had a law that stopped people openly lying that would be better however we would have no politicians left.

lazarus:

09 Aug 2012 10:54:06am

The problem for Bolt was what he wrote was not the truth and he & SMH refused to print a retraction. Nowhere near your argument that he told the truth, the Judge even stated that if he had told the truth he may have been close to winning the case.

Edge Hillbilly:

Philby:

09 Aug 2012 11:21:32am

Man you are missing the point big time, there are no laws against defaming the flag. You can take one and burn it at the steps of parliarment house if you want, piss and crap on it for all you want, there is no law against it. Now you may be arrested for public indecencies on the pissing and crapping so please don't do that.

James In Footscray:

09 Aug 2012 8:40:00am

The Memes page has been taken down, thanks to an organised protest. This suggests people can be trusted to deal with vile ideas themselves.

We don't need the state to shield us from unpleasantness. It's like how my mother would stand in front of the TV, and pretend to rearrange things on the bookshelf, so I wouldn't see something bad! We're not children.

Clownfish:

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 12:41:57pm

Finkelstein is largely correct, and you misrepresented him.

Tell me, Clownfish, who of those reading the Bolt articles were in a position to make an informed judgement as to whether Behrendt was raised by her white mother" or not? And who of those reading the Bolt articles would have been "appropriately informed" as to whether or not Eatock only "identified as an Aboriginal for political motives after attending a political rally"?

People would have believed or disbelieved what Bolt wrote not by cross-checking the facts as he presented them, but on the basis of whether they wanted to believe what he said or not.

Mark James:

10 Aug 2012 9:20:00am

Clownfish, Finkelstein (and Bromberg) made it quite clear, they were using the "reasonable person" test.

That implies that, even though everybody who reads Andrew Bolt coud be considered smart enough and able enough to cross-reference the article and check the veracity of what is written, the "reasonable person" will not do that because they have neither the time, the inclination, nor the capacity to do so.

Stuff up all the straw men you like, Clownfish, ("your opinion, people who read Andrew Bolt's columns are far too thick to make up their own minds"), but I think even you would have to agree that 80% of people who read Bolt (or read anybody or anthing else, for that matter) actually check the veracity of what they read.

Baska:

09 Aug 2012 9:34:52am

Well may not suggest any such thing. Who took it down and why? If Facebook took it down because they recognised that by being racially offensive it was in breach of Australian law, then it says nothing about people dealing with "vile ides" themselves.

It's not "us" who should be shielded from "unpleasantness", but the innocent victims of hate.

James In Footscray:

09 Aug 2012 10:06:27am

I think that's underestimating the targets of nasty opinions. They're not children either. In the domain of ideas, rough and tumble is good for us all. The best way to fight ideas is to expose them for the stupidity they are, not threaten legal action.

hugh mungus:

10 Aug 2012 1:20:31am

Oh yeah - that's going to work real well. When you are an individual being attacked by the likes of Bolt who has the Murdoch press to back him. Get real - what did Abbott and Costello do about Bob Elliss' book - expose it's stupidity or sue the publisher.

Baska:

09 Aug 2012 8:04:36pm

"in response to the backlash", Clownfish? Since when did a huge US corporation take the slightest notice of a "backlash" in Australia?? On the other hand, breaking Australian law might affect their profits.

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 8:54:02am

You really didn't even bother reading my comment, did you?

Because, firstly, I did not suggest that Facebook had responded to the backlash, but the owners of the page in question: 'The creator of the Aboriginal Memes Facebook page removed content after complaints' (SMH).

Secondly, I said that if it the page was removed by Facebook, it would be because it is in violation of its terms of use, as outlined in its 'Facebook Community Standards' document:

'Facebook does not permit hate speech. While we encourage you to challenge ideas, institutions, events, and practices, it is a serious violation to attack a person based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition'.

Not important:

09 Aug 2012 8:40:09am

The point Abbott made about offending Christians vs. Aboriginals is absurd. People choose their religion and their views thus others should have the right to be critical of them if they choose to be. Anyone born into a Christian or Jewish family can choose not to follow their familys religion its a choice people make. On the other hand people do not choose to be Aboriginal, African, Asian, Anglo, Slavic or whatever cultural background your parents happen to be, they are born that way and thats what you are stuck with the rest of your life. Thus offending Christians vs. Aboriginals is not a valid comparison Mr Abbott.

Edge Hillbilly:

Thelma:

09 Aug 2012 11:50:19pm

Actually, situation is not all that different. When you have inherited heritage of a number of nationalities and races and you choose to identify yourself with one aspect of your heritage, particularly if that heritage is smaller than other parts of your heritage - in that case such heritage had to be a matter of choice.

Clownfish:

Once again, the nascent authoritarian wing of the left shows that they just don't get.

'But ... but ... if we give people freedom of speech, they might say something offensive!'

Pre. Cise. Ly.

Freedom of speech *necessarily* includes the right to say offensive things. Indeed, many champions of free speech on the left, from Lenny Bruce to Johnny Rotten have made that exact point, often extremely offensively.

Was the 'Aboriginal Memes' page offensive? Yes it was. Was it racist? Undeniably.

But did it incite violence against Aborigines?

No it didn't, and *that's* the key.

Freedom of speech is not permission to be just say nice things. Freedom of speech *must* include the freedom to be offensive, or it is not freedom at all.

But the author is correct in one thing: the war on freedom of speech indeed risks 'collateral damage': governments change, and in Australia quite probably soon and dramatically.

So the power that some on the left are so eager to wield against their ideological enemies will most likely be turned against them in the very near future.

Matt Trioli:

Just wanted to pull you up on the wonderful Johnny Rotten. I believe he is actually fairly right wing in his views, perhaps Libertarian (not THAT far from Anarchist really) :)

I agree that free speech is to be vigourously defended, but not to the point where untruths can be broadcast to millions without checks and balances in place.

Bad taste is one thing (and the "memes" page was certainly that.) Villifying people on the basis of something they have no control over (heritage), is another. I find many racist jokes hilarious, but they are based on a stereotype...NOT aspersions on real, named people.

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 9:44:16am

Mr. Lydon is not easily pigeon-holed; working-class, anti-racist, anti-monarchist, iconoclastic - but considering that he dismissed the Blair government as 'just Margaret Thatcher politics under a Labor Party guise', I think it's fair to say that - for what it means - he could be classified under the vague rubric of 'the left'.

With regard to your argument about untruths being broadcast, even under a regime of free speech (which Australia does not nor has ever had, uniquely among liberal democracies), there are still legal checks on wilful untruth, such as defamation, as well as ethical standards as outlined in such as the MEAA guidelines.

Finally, there are simply community standards which may cause individuals to reflect on the appropriateness of what they choose to say. Thus, the 'Aboriginal Memes' creators seem to have been shamed into removing the offensive content. If they had persisted, then it would have been their call to endure the umbrage of the community, and almost certainly run afoul of Facebook's terms of use.

Edge Hillbilly:

colin:

therefore freedom of speech extend to others being allowed to tease your child until they suicide. surely you would still champion their right to say to your child whatever they like?

what if a journalist posts front pages stories that you are a known pedophile. even if your marriage breaks down, your boss fires you and your friends spit in your face over it? surely you wouldnt contact a lawyer to have this 'collateral damage' stopped,

after all like you said - freedom is freedom to be offensive or even cause you harm, or its not freedom at all

Simon:

09 Aug 2012 11:45:54am

"Was the 'Aboriginal Memes' page offensive? Yes it was. Was it racist? Undeniably. But did it incite violence against Aborigines?No it didn't, and *that's* the key."

The first step in subjugating a group of people, in dehumanising them, is to vilify them. Freedom of speech is not an untrammeled right, nor should it be. I'm all for vigorous debate about the shape of our society, and I believe it's appropriate to allow all voices to have their say, but opinions, suggestions, arguments must be raised in a manner that respects the rights of 'the other'. Those who fail to recognise the inherent dignity of any other group of people are making the same mistake as Breivik and al Qaeda.

Hate solves nothing.

"Freedom of speech *necessarily* includes the right to say offensive things."

No, it includes the right to say controversial things. Saying offensive things ... can actually be an offence. Hence, you know, the adjective 'offensive'.

Tombowler:

09 Aug 2012 11:50:47am

Brief, erudite and thoroughly correct. Good man.

I too, wonder at the position that might be taken were an Aboriginal activist taken to court for incorrectly suggesting that a 'white fella' stole his land or some such.. I suspect Mr Green might find a heretofore subdued affinity for freedom of speech resurgent...

Abstract arguments about the extent of free speech are moot. It is plain, to any free thinking man, that a proscribed right to not be offended is demonstrative of falling at the very first hurdle; that such laws place a subjective caveat on all speech and subsequently the qualifier of reception provides a filter far more damaging than any firewall conroy might place on the NBN..

Hank:

09 Aug 2012 12:09:49pm

Why is incitement significant? I say that freedom of speech *must* include the right to incite violence, or it is not freedom at all. Judging by your cavalier use of the term 'left', I assume you think of yourself as being on the 'right'. Why, I ask you, is the right so eager to excise incitement from my right to free speech?

Clownfish:

09 Aug 2012 12:30:47pm

Well, no, actually. I consider myself to be mostly 'of the left' (although most 'lefties' on here will splutter with indignation when I say that, because I refuse to adhere to the tribal dogmas they hold so dear).

Anyway, to address your point, most libertarians and certainly the great philosopher of liberalism, J. S. Mill, draw the line at direct incitement to violence because this violates the fundamental principle of the citizens' right to be free from violence.

Mill illustrated this by saying, 'an opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but [not] when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer.''

Hank:

09 Aug 2012 3:33:47pm

Ok, we can ditch the 'left' 'right' stuff. It just seems unhelpful to bring it in at all, as evidenced in part by my mischaracterisation of your position.

The main point is that, despite what Mill argued, limiting freedom of speech in such a way as not to include incitement is still a limit. The argument would go that it is the violence itself which infringes the rights of my fellow citizen, not the words inciting it. Not to mention the difficulty of ascertaining where the line of incitement should be drawn...

What I'm getting at ultimately is that everyone draws a line somewhere beyond which freedom of speech is trumped by other freedoms. Incitement might make sense, for the reasons that Mill provides, but it is still a limitation on free expression.

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 9:12:39am

Well, I must say, it's a breath of fresh air to be able to discuss these matters without the usual tribalism :)

Yes, it does constitute a limitation on freedom of speech, which Mill recognised. What it comes down to is competing principles - the principle of absolute freedom of speech competing with the principle that all citizens have the right to live free of violence.

Nearly always, the two will not seriously compete, however as Mill recognised, there are rare instances where they will - such as incitement of the kind he illustrated.

In such cases, I would argue that the right to be free from violence is the more imperative.

This is a limitation I am certainly happy to accommodate, and which I believe most sensible libertarians would as well.

To use a contemporary example, I don't see it as at all unreasonable to discuss multiculturalism and its benefits or disadvantages. Overtly racist comments, while stupid and vile, should nonetheless be (however grudgingly) countenanced within the rubric of freedom of speech.

A radio host repeatedly broadcasting - allegedly as 'reportage' - a text message inciting violence against a particular group in the community is dangerously close to incitement (in fact, I would argue that it *is* incitement) and should most likely not be granted as free speech.

Meanwhile, someone composing a message advocating a day of violence against a certain community group most certainly *is* engaging in incitement and as such cannot be granted freedom of speech. In such a case the one person's right to freedom from violence unambiguously trumps another's right to free speech.

Fiona S:

hugh mungus:

10 Aug 2012 1:27:37am

Interesting how a small disturbance became a 'riot' at the hands of the rabid right. Interesting that it was Abbotts own words that lead to that disturbance. Interesting that he has so little courage and backbone that he was unable to quieten and handful of annoyed people banging on a window. Howard would have had the guts to go and speak to them.

hugh mungus:

Gollygosh:

09 Aug 2012 8:40:17am

Abbott hops on every populist bandwagon. There are no standards any more. It is most concerning that all the redneck attitudes are encouraged by this so called "educated Rhodes Scholar". Can he not see what he is doing to the country?

We need to bring some respect back into politics. Less smearing and more probity from everyone please!

frillneck:

Mog57:

Conservatives do appear to have very long memories and hold on to their grievances for a long time.

Is Abbott proposing changes in Racial Discrimination Legislation for one person, I presume a friend Bolt, who feels aggrieved about the law that was used sucessfully against him years ago.

Abbott is going up North this week because he professes to believe in the helping of Aboriginal people, 'white fella' help I think, that means a great photoshoot. Perhaps he will remove his top Putinesque style, oooh ladies. I cant wait until he is our PM, that bloody woman is to blame for everything!Lets face it ALL women are to blame for everything in a male dictated Australia.

Our Australians who live 'on country' do not allow them to protect themselves when they and their lineage is villified by the likes of Bolt, a hack if ever there was one.

Abbott wants to lead our country as our PM for a very few like minded folk like Mr Bolt, not you and I.WHY does it look as if he will?

Nick:

09 Aug 2012 10:47:39am

I do not agree with anything you have said and find your personal attacks on T Abbott quite offensive ,rude and deceitful as you can not substantiate any of your accusations.But guess what?Free speech gives you that liberty.Enjoy it whilst you can.

Clownfish:

09 Aug 2012 11:07:52am

Freedom of speech is for everybody. Abbott is sticking up for your right as well as Andrew Bolt's. One of these days you might get it.

As for Tony Abbott's volunteer work, it might behoove you to get some facts: Abbott has previously volunteered for weeks at a time teaching Aboriginal children, as well as helping at Aboriginal housing projects for long after the 'photoshoot' had ended.

hugh mungus:

Emma:

09 Aug 2012 8:46:06am

"Ever since, Bolt has repeatedly claimed that he is constrained from discussing issues of race and identity" - this claim is just as devoid of truth as everything else the man says... eg. See today's 'constrained' offering: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/aboriginal-woman-bess-price-nungarrayi-slammed-for-speaking-the-truth/story-e6freal3-1226446175174

RON:

09 Aug 2012 8:56:46am

Since Howard subsumed the Hansonites and their xenophobic fear and smear strategies the Coalition have been pursuing the dismantling of anti-Discriminatory legislative protections to minorities. One reason for this is that such legal protections curtail their media allies, such as Bolt and a host of radio scream jocks to keep the boguns satisfied and onside with LNP movement, which in the long term will undermine their economic aspirations. As the saying goes, "Keep them scared. Keep them stupid, and they won't notice being ripped off".

The thing about Abbott is that he is obvious. Too many people don't see his "obviousness", and that is more a reflection of them than it is of Abbott. He knows what he wants, and is well on his way of getting it, particularly when we are now in a period of a very dumbed down public conversation about everything.

gazza:

09 Aug 2012 8:57:45am

Fighting hard to uphold the right to publicly spread Erroneous facts, distortions of truth, provocative and inflammatory language,is seriously disturbing behavior from TA and cohorts,,but not surprising, given the populist propaganda smokescreen it provides you, when you do not have a credible progressive vision for the future prosperity of us all..

nunga:

09 Aug 2012 11:25:04am

Well said, and still we have those that support this attitude. People have the right to hold what ever beliefs they want, but they don't have the right to act on those beliefs to the detriment of others.

Dave:

09 Aug 2012 12:43:08pm

act on those beliefs to the detriment of others. But of course it is okay for a certain group in Australia to run the victim syndrome approach and the country pays out ridiculous amounts of money and discriminatory assistance to them. Meanwhile anyone that points out the discrimination against the 99.5% of Australians is called a racist and worst.

lazarus:

Oscar:

How sad that we now need expert interpretations of the law to restrain people like Andrew Bolt. It seems that such high-profile journalists aim to get away with as much as they legally can.

By contrast, they could emulate the aims of the first BBC governors as inscribed in the entrance hall of the BBC's Broadcasting House, London, in 1931: "It is their prayer that good seeds sown may bring forth a good harvest, that all things hostile to peace or purity may be banished from this (BBC) house, that the people, inclining their ears to whatever things are beautiful, honest and of good report, may tread the paths of wisdom and righteousness."

Yes, the language sounds old-fashioned but what a contrast in outlook from the Australian media today!

Andy:

Timothy Vukomanovic:

09 Aug 2012 11:41:22am

and we see the BBC with such drivel has now become a propaganda machine, particularly in endeavoring to give justification for war by the British govt. The BBC is the propaganda machine of the British Govt, you need only see their recent one sided coverage of the war in Syria.

GSM:

09 Aug 2012 9:06:05am

The ABC has a vested interest in all this. As the bullwark of the Left, I suspect it is Jonathan's duty to promote ALP dogma and policy, especially if it favours the ABC's current special position as the media wing of the political Left and our Govt.

What better way to take out the ABC's commercial "off message" competition than by supporting Govt plans to muzzle it?

Jonathan, you are not a supporter of free speech. Abbott was clear, free speech does come at a cost sometimes. Yes, there are those that will be offended. Checks and balances exist for this to be remedied and compensated. We are better WITH free speech than against. Abbott is perfectly correct in this.

Muzzling free speech however is an odious Left tool for limiting the public's knowledge of all manner of frauds, lies and incompetencies. Or, perhaps we should just TRUST the ALP, Julia and Conroy to be fair and honest? That's worked out so well for us.

lazarus:

09 Aug 2012 11:04:01am

You will allow me the freedom to put up posters around your neighbourhood calling you a paedophile with your photo above it in the name of free speech? I think not.

Free speech Abbott style is to allow all sorts of odious people the right to vilify anyone they please. A typical right wing reaction to a slap in the face for getting your facts wrong and refusing to retract the story.

Politically Incorrect:

09 Aug 2012 9:07:34am

At the end of the day Abbott and Bolt are arguing for the freedom to lie. A freedom they already have and use on quite a consistant basis (hell, Abbott himself has admitted you cannot trust what he says).

I personally however support the removal Section 18D. Existing slander laws should have been more than sufficient to toast Bolt in court.

Basically what Bolt wants is the freedom to say what he wants regardless of truthfulness or not, he wants to have the freedom to accuse Gillard of being a closet lesbian and get away with it, with any attempt of Gillard attempting to defend herself is seen as "Government censorship".

Abbott of course supports Bolt's position because that enables a radical right press to stir up a "Tea Party" here to make Abbott electable by making him "moderate" by comparison.

Reinhard:

09 Aug 2012 10:38:48am

"Existing slander laws should have been more than sufficient to toast Bolt in court."

No you are wrong , the plaintiffs in the case also had the option to pursue Bolt under defamation law but wisely chose not to. Defamation law requires that the plaintiff not only prove the lie , but they have to prove there was "malice aforethought", and that the lie had caused a public harm to their character. It would therefore be very easy for Bolt, with the strong financial support of his backers to simply out-lawyer any potential plaintiffs.

Simon:

Clear Thinker:

09 Aug 2012 5:46:07pm

Abbott will persist with the Carbon Tax and boats issue. As far as he is concerned, he is on a winner. He would like an election sooner rather than at the correct time, and he fully believes Gillard won't serve out its full term.

Even today, he is blaming the Carbon Tax for the increases in electricity over the last four years.

Anne:

09 Aug 2012 9:10:23am

In truth, I am not sure how I feel about this idea. The concerns about limits to free speech, even vile stuff, is where does it end. Who judges what is offensive or discriminatory. I would rather the public be given some credit to discern and make their own decisions. The public or the individual is the best censor and there is inherent in that freedom a right of reply. Curbing freedom of speech with continual erosions into personal conduct could also result in creeping intrusions over time, eroding speech to the point of ridiculousness. As for Bolt, there are ample opportunities for legal recourse in his claims about Indigenous Australians the best of all defamation/libel and truth. It is a difficult area and there is a possibility for hate speech to lead to violence, but is the answer curbing freedom of speech. Are the other mechanisms enough?

Emma:

09 Aug 2012 10:04:13am

The person who is the victim of the racial or bigoted attack surely gets to decide whether they are offended - not the 'public'. Why is it OK for people to spit their derogatory bile at particular (usually, 'other') people anyway? Why is offending and upsetting people supposedly a 'right'? As a society we decided long ago that verbal abuse was indeed an act of violence between spouses - why is public verbal abuse, especially that tending to stereotype and promulgate across society (to form the bases ongoing abuses), not similarly characterised?

Jack:

09 Aug 2012 12:45:46pm

The person who is the victim of the racial or bigoted attack surely gets to decide whether they are offended. Certainly not given the number of precious princesses out their with a victim syndrome or prepare to yell discrimination to protect their gravy train!

Social Anathema:

09 Aug 2012 12:25:54pm

Defamation and libel laws do not necessarily cover general statements and stereotyping. If a group that you belong to is offensively stereotyped, the defamation laws won't cover you because you, personally, would not be named in the offensive piece. This is where section 18c comes in, if the offending statements are racially based.

RON:

09 Aug 2012 1:02:02pm

I get that the public can decide what lies and what nasty oppinion slurs are. But I have a strong desire to have a similiar vindictive oppinion to make about Bolt and Abbott. But, guess what? The media won't publish my vitriol. So without the law to protect ordinary folk from the likes of Bolt only a privileged few can sit there and fire printed and verbal nasties at anyone they like without any accountabilities. This seems to be Abbott's ambition and I, for one, don't like a situation where I can't hit back because the offending media outlet can mussle me. If everyone get have a go to slur and vilify like Bolt can then I say, bring it on!

ursus augustus:

09 Aug 2012 9:10:42am

I don't follow your logic Jonathon. If the Aboriginal Memes page is still on Facebook and it is not running afoul of Section 18C of the current racial Discrimination Act, which Abbott says he will repeal , then what is the basis for you to judge it is not worthy of protection as (rather ugly but nonetheless) free speech or that Abbott is somehow wrong in his ambition? Repealing 18C would apparently have no effect on Aboriginal Memes.

I have not seen it and will not be bothered to look at it because it has been described in the media as racist crap basically which is free speech countering free speech.

As the PM said " Don't write crap". She was off her usual meds and crystalline lucid that day.

Mark James:

Worryingly, ursus, you have just written: "I have not seen it and will not be bothered to look at it because it has been described in the media as racist crap".

You believed what the media said without questioning what was said. This makes you vulnerable to a campaign of deception.

Now, I guess this is where the problem starts.

1. We have the most concentrated media in the developed world regularly pushing nonsense that is in breach of its own codes of conduct (its contract of trust with readers and the wider public).

2. And then we have readers such as ursus, who comes across on these forums as a fairly intelligent person able to think for his or herself, but who believes what newspapers say without actually checking the veracity of what they say.

No offence, ursus, we're all susceptible to an array of misperceptions because we simply do not have the time or energy to ascertain, all the time, whether we're being sold a lemon or not (and I've been sold as many lemons as the next person).

But, the fact is, when you cross a media prone to misleading with a population prone to being misled, you get a democracy that is ill-informed.

This is the problem that I believe Finkelstein was attempting to address.

Timothy Vukomanovic:

09 Aug 2012 12:08:33pm

If the ABC followed Julia's admonishment to not write crap, they would not be able to report what Gillard says in most of her speeches, and not allow most govt ministers interview time (well at least they should not be able to print a transcript of their interviews).

We all have a different definition of what is tolerable and what is abusive, all speech is insulting to someone and everyone will have something that they find abusive regardless that others may not. Growing thicker skins is the answer.

Shane:

09 Aug 2012 9:13:22am

These laws don't prevent freedom of speech. Nor do they prevent Andrew Bolt, or anyone else for that matter, from raising the topics he did. What they do is protect people from how Bolt did it. He made assertions without evidence that were intended to insult and bully.

arf:

09 Aug 2012 9:22:29am

Oddly enough, I agree that people should not be restrained from putting their views on display. People then know what to think of the person expressing that view (I certainly know what I think of Andrew Bolt).

The problem lies in demonstrating disapproval or otherwise. Being able to express an offensive view should not be taken as tacit acceptance of that view.

Marty:

09 Aug 2012 9:23:20am

I hate Bolt with a passion , the man is just a rigth wing nutter , but what he said is not entriely wrong. I know of many people who "identify" as Aboriginal who have as much link with the land and all the other cultural crap as a high rise city dweller. They identify to get special treatment and openly admit it

Don:

Social Anathema:

09 Aug 2012 12:55:13pm

1. There are a number of hoops that you need to jump through to get "special treatment." 2. I know of at least one Aboriginal person who claimed Austudy when she went to university, because it gave her a better deal than Abstudy did. She did the appropriate research, and did not rely on hearsay.3, Don't judge all people who identify as Aboriginal by the few who do seem to be exploiting the system.4. Bolt was prosecuted for the bits that he did get wrong. 5. The problem with populist opinions and the "free speech' that misinforms them is that too often they rely on the rumor and innuendo which can be extrapolated from half truths.

maus:

09 Aug 2012 9:28:18am

"The same protection that exists, for example, under defamation law".

Yet Bolt wasnt done for defamation as he would have probably won. They went the racial discrimination act instead and there was a reason for that. Some topics are tabboo now it seems as dont want to cause offence to anyone. And lets face it, someone always takes offence to even the smallest things. The horse called Blackman for instance, opps cant say that name as someone took offence to it so had to be changed.

Free speech is good, a racial disrcimination act is good. Not being able to say something as it may cause offence is not, whethor factual or not.

Mark James:

maus, Bromberg expressed the opinion that Bolt was just as likely to have been defeated had the case gone before the Defamation laws.

The reason the plaintifs gave for prosecuting under the Racial Discrimination Act was that they wanted vindication not money.

Had they won a defamation case, of course, we would not have heard the end of News Ltd accusing Bolt's victims of being motivated only by greed (and this would have fed nicely into Bolt's distorted "plum jobs" narrative).

Lehan Ramsay:

09 Aug 2012 9:29:36am

A lot has been said about this speech, I remain confused. Who is he speaking for, the Liberal Party or the Institute of Public Affairs? I still think that we should be considering and responding to the entire organisation, not merely its mouth. Sometimes those who stand behind it are also important.

Politically Incorrect:

Maxx:

09 Aug 2012 9:30:32am

.."the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language and that as a result, the conduct of Mr Bolt and HWT is not justified in the manner required by section 18D of the RDA."

Just about covers all media and parliamentary discourse today so I don't see the problem really.

Lehan Ramsay:

RayS:

09 Aug 2012 9:33:24am

I'm all in support of Abbott's push for freedom of comment in the media. For too long child sexual abuse by members of the clergy of infant and immature boys and girls under their control has been subject to "self-censorship" by the media. Sure they report when charges are laid but the institutional sanctuary provided by the church for identified paedophiles that they knew about has never been the subject of brutal attack in the mainstream media the way they attack political enemies or defenceless minorities.

Not withstanding that religions are not "races" and therefore are not even protected by vilification laws, the media still take a noncritical stance, pretending the individual clergy are the sole problem, despite the revelations over many years now of numerous scumbags nested in the vipers nests of the churches.

That's because churches have money and can take civil action. Which is what Aborigines should do, against Facebook, The Australian, The Telegraph and against people or groups who libel them collectively or individually. Take their money and use it to benefit Aborigines. What's the use of mere moral victories or penalties that benefit the government, not the actual victims.

Yes, let's go with Abbott and let's see some web sites with naked drunken nuns and sodomizing priests. It's important to have "freedom of speech".

Mark James:

taggiematcher, what "writing crap" means is generally writing stuff that is in breach of your own codes of conduct (your contract of trust with readers and the wider public).

If Fairfax have regularly breached their own codes of conduct, by all means let us know where and when.

But the fact is, News Ltd have regularly breached their own codes of conduct and have been called out on it (I've highlighted at least six examples in previous posts).

If News Ltd do not want to abide by the codes of conduct they have agreed to abide by, then fair enough. But they should not then be able to claim the privileges granted to news organisations on the basis that they report without fear or favour (or, in accordance with their codes of conduct).

Timothy Vukomanovic:

09 Aug 2012 2:16:54pm

Why do comments on this site rarely address the issue and fall down into a mud slinging match of name calling between self confessed left and right supporters.

It is not left or right we need be concerned about, and what News limited or Fairfax freely prints is even of less concern. What is important is that govts of both persuations would at time like to control what the press prints and says and sensor what we get to see. I find any law that touches on suppressing the freedom of individuals to express an opinion a scary proposal that we should run away from. The current govt has shown it is particularly willing to trample on freedom of speech, they started at Conroy's internet filter proposal, Media regulation body thoughts and continue to support such laws as the one Abbott wants done away with, laws mandating internet providers keeping all your emails and a history of sites looked at for 2 years etc etc.

We must defend freedom of speech, freedom of association and privacy from attacks by govts of all persuasions.

SmithW:

09 Aug 2012 2:55:07pm

Definition of Crap: 1. anyone who has an opinion that doesn't match my own in every aspect. 2. anyone who has an original idea, because I ran out of those years ago, (if I ever really had one) so they must be talking crap.

Poppy:

09 Aug 2012 9:39:34am

Abbott is an opportunistic hypocrite.. yet you and the rest of the msm let him get away without criticism.. on the one hand we have altruistic Abbott continually portrayed as a friend of Indiginous people out in Aboriginal communities lending a hand ,for the cameras, and next he is supporting the racial villification of some Aboriginal people when it is done by a right wing Murdoch journalist who bases his comments on misrepresentations and untruths. The same can be said for Abbott's so called Polly Pedal for which he is given so much free publicity, which was actually implemented by Ross Cameron, Jackie Kelly, and Charlie Lynn in the late 1990's, and was a bi-partisan event and includes politicians from the State and Federal sphere. This very worthy charity ride has recently morphed into just another huge promo for Abbott.

Abbott, today, is a construct of the Liberal Party PR machine and the gutless journalists of the msm whose ethics match their continuing decline in readership.

Andy:

09 Aug 2012 9:39:35am

It is somewhat a sad reflection on society, but I suspect there can be little argument that there needs to be laws governing some aspects of free speech. With the fact that everyone these days is essentially a commentator (myself included having written on this forum) inaccurate, hateful, misguided and sometimes just plain ball faced lies can be made to be see by thousands if not more people (think YouTube, FaceBook,even personally created websites). Having the power to reach thousands if not more people with your thoughts, ideas and opinions carries a certain responsibility, something that not everyone takes as seriously as they should, if you use mass communication to mislead, incite hate or discord there needs to be consequences.

ken:

09 Aug 2012 9:40:28am

The Bolt article was crap - bad journalism: 'the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language'. In other words, crap. And it is great that the court ruled that, if something is crap, then it cannot, by definition, be fair comment. A giant leap forward for journalism in Oz. (And Mr. Rabbit is now vigorously defending the right of journalists to write crap - as long as it his sort -the kind he spouts himself)

DaisyMay:

09 Aug 2012 12:59:59pm

I get it!.. The Prime Minsiter Julia Gillard says to journalists... "don't write crap.".... "(and Mr. Rabbitt is now vigourously defending the right of journalists to write crap...)" typical TA, anything Gillard says,he will say the opposite.

Jenny:

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 10:24:09am

Willy Wombat, Bolt has censored blog responses. The editors of Bolt's newspaper censors journalists all the time. The news is censored by newspaper owners. Every Australian citizen is effectively censored by Defamation laws. In 2005, John Howard's recently passed Sedition laws were used to ban books.

If it is only "politically correct" censorship you're opposed to, could you say what "politically correct" censorship is, exactly, and how it differs in any way to all the other censorship that exists in Australia?

Forseti:

09 Aug 2012 11:06:52am

The law was used, not some notion of "political correctness". There was no censorship, which is a pre-publication ban, as the ruling relates to statements purporting to be facts, which were forensically found to be otherwise. No freedom of speech issue here, move along.

Reeper (The Original):

09 Aug 2012 12:27:38pm

Willy, using lies to defame people is just as much an abomination and requires as rigorous policing as the right to free speech.

Had Bolt based his comments on fact rather than fabricated material then this would be a freedom of speech debate. It's such a basic tenent of Journalism to validate your facts that failing to do so on such inflammatory claims sinks him ethically lower that the NOTW hacks who illegally hacked private phone accounts. Bolt was generating ill will against a group of people using fabrications.

There's enough injustice in the world to report on without nutbags like Bolt using concocted stories to suit his personal political life view.

colin:

09 Aug 2012 11:52:01am

its pretty obvious that Abbott is going to do the same dog-whistle racism that Howard used. Howard was a damn sight more cunning a politican than the attack dog Abbott though, I think Abbott will get into hot water a few times using this tactic

Steve:

VB:

10 Aug 2012 9:10:46am

Nice try, but the point about metaphor is not the 'fundamental basis' of the article. If you don't believe me then redact that section from the article and read it. Does it still have a point? Check. Accordingly, what you've identified is not the fundamental basis of the argument.

Furthermore, the author never made an argument that particular metaphors are the rightful preserve of particular individuals so bringing Rudd into things doesn't expose a 'flaw'.

So, I think your attempt at sniping the author has been a resounding failure.

paradise:

09 Aug 2012 9:54:59am

It's a topic fit to attract the strident, of all wings. Schooling helps, but does not guarantee, the getting of wisdom. In considering this area, who has noticed that Bolt is a fraud, a quack, a misfit. He has no decent qualifications except typing and a fertile imagination. Anyone carrying out physical acts while pretending to be a doctor, lawyer, police, would be swiftly charged and jailed, and rightly so. Bolt, and many others in media's swamp of opinioneering, acts as if he were qualified on legal, economic, science, social and general matters as some expert of value. You could get decency elsewhere, without submitting to this rubbish like a passive follower of some cult of religious superstition run by a similar fraudster. Media fraud is a real challenge.

LiR:

09 Aug 2012 9:56:02am

TAbbott himself was the winner of a defamation claim to the tune of $66,000. Rather hypocrtitical I think, but then that IS Abbott - always seeking to win the populist vote, always seeking to keep his greatest fans on side - Jones, Bolt and the ultra conservative he loves them - and they in return love him. Really rather pathetic.

The PM said it don't write crap. Bolt's story contained factual errors, and everyone who has ever read his stuff knows that he is always seeking to inflame, that is his style, that is why he attracts the type of audience he does.

David Nicholas:

In the US when someone says they have a problem with you, with some issue, policy or action, then there is a problem.

The same thing is with war. When you declare war as Tony Abbott did at the IPA on Monday, then we are at war.

I have serious problems about Mr. Abbott, particularly his personal conduct and carelessness with words. I dont like the way he behaves and he never recognizes or takes responsibility, when he unleashes Pandora s Box on any issue.

For Mr. Abbott to take up the issue of freedom of the press that the Institute of Public Affairs has been advocating with some rational passion since the release of the Finkelstein Report is like throwing petrol on a fire. When he gets involved he incites hysteria and irrationality.

But putting that to one side for a moment.

My question, which stems from your concern is, what is happening to us?

This is more important than Tony Abbott or about Freedom of the Press. For me its about our personal self-esteem and self-worth.

Yes, it has to do with ferocity level of political debate that has occurred over the last two years, but more so it has to with what personal satisfaction we get from living our lives in this wonderful country. To get personal satisfaction, you actually have to like yourself.

We dont talk about ourselves as much as we should and about the success we have in just living life. Whenever birthdays come around to my friends who are 40 years or older, my response always is that you have come this far down the road and you have survived. For me that is quite some achievement. Living a long life span is worthy of recognition.

So when Andrew Bolt carps on about how the law has done him wrong , I encourage him to continue, because the more he does so the more he is marginalized and sooner than later he becomes irrelevant.

Defending Mr. Bolt as a cause clbre right now is a fashion and like all fashion becomes outdated and then discarded. That he is recognized as having run afoul of the law sticks in his craw and his complaints have fallen on willing ears. But so what?

When it comes to indigenous and traditional people, reporting their stories by all the press is for the most part very negative and Andrew Bolt is the very extreme of the problem.

Despite the national apology, the life of indigenous peoples has not changed very much if I am to take the Australian press at face value, but there are good life affirming stories, too. But I dont look for them in newspapers.

There is a reason why there is still an Aboriginal Embassy in Canberra. We have no real clue as to who they are and what they have to offer us by them just Being. If you didnt get that, maybe we are the ones with the problem.

Yoda:

Thank you for such a sensible comment David. One of the best i have read on the Drum.It is ALL about self respect and self worth. When Abbott gets involved he does incite hysteria and irrationality.

What is even more worrying is he does it deliberately- the fear mongering over the carbon tax, the dehumanising of asylum seekers, the refusal to allow a free vote over gay marriage and now 'freedom wars' are all designed to appeal to negatives in our society and to incite hysteria.Much the same tactics as were used by one Adolf.

Oscar:

David, you would enjoy reading the Koori Mail, a newspaper produced by an independent group of Aboriginal people and with no government funding.

It is published fortnightly, is available from newsagents and should be included in your local public library. Also, just enter Koori Mail into your search engine.

As a white fella myself I like to read it for its articles, its poems and to see the achievements of Aboriginal people. The Koori Mail is such a refreshing contrast to the 'crap' from Andrew Bolt and other journalists.

Carol:

09 Aug 2012 9:59:48am

All I know is that the reason Andrew Bolt got into trouble was that he told lies. That is what will happen and is happening now with the Murdoch press. I remember seeing something on The Daily Show where Fox News was reporting that Obama was spending a ridiculous amount of money (I forget the figure) on his trip to India. It was totally untrue! So how do we have a press that is required to make sure what facts they print are the truth. I know some articles are what is called opinion but surely they should not have lies in them.

Another thing, what was the reason Tony Abbott got Bob Ellis to destroy his book? Wasn't that freedom of speech on Bob Ellis's part. So it is okay when it is for you but not what it is against you.

Reinhard the warmist:

09 Aug 2012 10:01:01am

To quote Abbott's speech "The article for which Andrew Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. There may have been some factual errors. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's others' right to say what you don't like, not just what you do. It's the freedom to write badly and rudely. It's the freedom to be obnoxious and objectionable."http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-06/abbott-accuses-govt-of-trying-to-muzzle-free-speech/4179798

Free speech it is also the freedom to tell the truth and not use lame excuses like laziness for spreading lies and distortions. Abbott wants to get the right wing-nuts on side by defending his proxy dog-whistler Andrew Bolt, accusing the govt of trying to "muzzle free speech".This is total hypocrisy when it is HIS full intention to blithely allow uncle Rupert and other right-wing interests to take complete control of our newspapers and commercial news-media. Abbott loves Bolt and Jones' free hate-speech, but loathes free speech when it is used against him and his backers. This arrogance may come back to bite him however, by defending Bolt so vehemently he risks losing the centre left that abandoned Labor in the past 2 years. They may finally see the real Tony and what he really stands for, they will certainly start to think twice about voting for him.

Ruth:

09 Aug 2012 10:05:09am

Rather than spending time defending Bolt (cloaked under the guise of a defence of free speech), Abbott should have spent the time discussing actual issues of concern in this country like Indigenous Health.

Rob:

09 Aug 2012 10:06:52am

Neo cons like Abbott, Bolt, Jones, Ackerman, Abetz and fellow travellers are no different to those on extreme left.

Both sides demonise others to support their ideolgiies. So we have the LNP demonising asylum seekers, public servants, teachers, gays, climate change scientists. Anyone and anything they think will entice the punters to follow them.And followers they get- anyone who for one reason or another feels a need to look down on others joins in the demonising.Histroy shows that is where the danger lies- when good people are conned into doing evil things- the "Lucifer Effect" as Philip Zimbardo called it. We do need some regulation to reduce the amount of 'crap'.

Sandra S.:

09 Aug 2012 10:07:13am

The basic difference between Jonathan Green and Andrew Bolt is - Andrew Bolt listens to people and knows how people feel. That is why he is so populars and that is why journalists like Jonathan Green are obsessed with him, knowing that they can never command such huge readership. Perhaps if they try to listen to people rather than trying to impose their own value system and indulge in social re-engineering of our society they would have far greater following.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was obviously written with good intentions, however it has become plainly obvious to anyone that it has been used by the various activists to further promote racial haterance and intolerance. Remember that a group of Christians have been charged under the act for reading the Qouran - 'offending the feelings of Muslims'. Can someone please explain to me when and how a religion can become a race?!!! The Act is flawed and it should most deffinitely repealled.

trigger:

RON:

09 Aug 2012 1:13:32pm

I can tell you with my hand on my heart that Bolt does not listen to me. What makes you so special? At least Green publishes your blog. Bolt totally rejects mine no matter how politely they are written.

I reckon if I had a go at Bolt, Alan Jones etc they would very likely sue me for both racial and sexual discrimination. They like to give it but most certainly as demonstrated by Bolt don't like to take it. TypicAl bullies, are'nt they? That is why I support Abbott's change of legislation only if I can be assured that the media publish my own slurs as well. Of course, I would agree to the condition not to use swear words.

Fiona:

09 Aug 2012 2:06:02pm

Bolt and Jones are both very smart, they don't so much listen to people as tell them want they want to hear, there is a difference. Their biggest 'sin' in my eyes is they over simplify things, virtually nothing in life is as clear cut as they try and make out.

Bolt makes alot of money, telling people simple messages about how everyone is out to get the 'average Aussie', that's what people love, it's the same reason they love ACA/TT.

Tim:

09 Aug 2012 11:32:28am

Richo, yes I agree that Green was cherry picking but I also believe that Bolt was NOT acting reasonably and in good faith.

I do not question the factual accuracy of his article. Hell, I even agree with him in large part. However Bolt is an articulate writer and the vein of his words sought not only to offend but also incite and therein lies the transgression of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. He could have moderated his language and yet still conveyed the facts. Freedom of speech certainly cannot be used as an excuse for incitement of religious-racial hatred and as we all agree, the pen is infinitely sharper than the sword.

But I'm sure that Bolt fully comprehends all that which is why I believe that he, as with most journalists, choose to create controversy in the 1st place as a means of garnering notoriety and hence publicity. It is after all preferable to obscurity. Which is also why I believe Bolt & HWT did not contest or appeal the verdict. They knew & accepted the slap on the wrist.

But when (not if) Abbott becomes PM, then Section 18C could very well be amended or repealed. I have no objections to that. It will be interesting to see if Bolt's popularity will increase or diminish as a result of less litigation.

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 1:27:41pm

Again Richo, it is simply not true that Bolt was found guilty regardless of factual accuracy. Here's what Bromberg said:

"I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred, is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language."

To clarify, Bromberg did not exempt Bolt under 18D because "they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth".

rumpole1:

09 Aug 2012 10:11:57am

While I don't agree with open slather, free speech is a fine line to walk.

A bloke called David Irving was allowed to come to Australia and slander the Jewish people by saying they invented the holocaust (demonstrably false), and got away with it scot free. Bolt says some people identify as Aboriginal to get benefits. I'm sure this is true. What the actual numbers are I have no idea.

There are certain double standards here I feel. I think Bolt is a nasty piece of work and I don't want a bar of what he has to say, but maybe the Anti Discrimination Act goes a bit far sometimes.

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 3:21:09pm

Richo, I appreciate there are differences, but I don't think the differences are large enough to warrant one law being repealed on a freedom of speech basis and the other law not.

To be honest, I don't know law enough to say whether or not somebody could be prosecuted under defamation laws on the basis they offended someone. I would guess there would have to be more to it than that (as there was in the Bolt case), and that there would be a similar freedom of expression exemption there to protect the accused in the interests of free-speech.

If you look at the offending passage in Bob Ellis's book, for example (the passage Abbott and Costello cited to get the book pulped through defamation), there seems little in what Ellis wrote beyond being offensive (to Abbott and Costello) and being factually inaccurate (it was a misattributed quote).

Not much different to the Bolt case except Ellis used significant distortions of fact to offend the rich and powerful, whereas Bolt used significant distortions of fact to offend those who were not rich and powerful.

M Ryutin:

09 Aug 2012 5:17:13pm

"then not only 18C of the Racial Descrimination Act needs to be repealed, but all the Defamation laws and Sedition laws"

'That is totally wrong. Defamation is an appropriate protection for INDIVIDUAL rights and not group rights. For group rights, the righht to be actually IN a group is a very proiper topic for free and open debate (and as was shown on SBS the other night this debate is taking place by part of the community only).

Defanation should not be the preserve of the rich, should be pushed to lower courts for ease of access; super injunctions should be outloawed and stop writs should be limited by huge penalties for abuse (whenever a action was not carrued through to finality for example).

It is not (and was never) either these improper limits to free speech or defamation and most people of good inent would know that.

Mark James:

M Ryutin, I agree defamation should be opened up so that it no longer serves as a law to protect just the rich and the powerful. I think we both know that this will not happen, though.

As for repealing Defamation and Sedition laws, I really cannot understand why you would oppose this if you are in favour of free-speech.

Your attempt to distinguishing between a "group" and an "individual" is either naive or simply incorrect.

If Abbott repeals 18C, we'll have a situation where it will be a crime to to significantly distort facts to smear a corporation but not a crime to significantly distort fact to smear Jews or Muslims or Aborigines.

Why must we curtail our speech in order to protect corporations but not groups of people?

Matt:

LoveMedi:

Trying to justify why the left didn't make a sound, or defend Bolt is the failing of the entire Australian left media.

They know it, and are not comfortable with it.

So they attempt to trivialize it by saying it was poor journalism - is that illegal? No.

It was factually incorrect - so what, it's not illegal

Some was offended, apparently so now we have the ability to suppress free speech because of hurt feelings, that's absurd and we all know it.

What Bolt said, is openly discussed in the US at the moment in a similar situation, but there, everyone is piling on to a woman who claims American aboriginality with 1/32 (supposedly) ancestry, both left and right, because she's used the opportunity for personal gain, rules that are there to assist oppressed people .. it's about opportunism. (sound familiar)

BTW - She is not taking offence, she is defending herself, openly.

No one is suppressing the language or the accusations, no one even considers they should.

In fact, and maybe this is what is disturbing the left in Australia, the Americans looked at what happened here with Bolt, and called "censorship".

Now we have all the left, trying to weasel out of the fact, they did not defend freedom of speech, and the end result?

Fiona:

09 Aug 2012 10:20:25am

I wonder if there had been all this fuss if the facebook page was about white Western suburb bogans ?, or Qld renecks ?. How often do we hear 'white people are racist', or 'white people go back to where you came from'.

It seems many who defend these laws don't have a problem with things like that, they see the law as defending minorities, but we are meant to be equal under the law, you can't have it both ways.

There is much hypocrisy here. If we are going down the road of not being able to offend people, than that must include all people, which is a very big can of worms. If you can't insult a black person, then you can't insult a white person. We accept Aborigines burning and spitting on an Australian flag, would we accept white people doing the same to an Aboriginal flag ?. You can only have both, or neither.

Mark James:

09 Aug 2012 1:16:09pm

Fiona, in February 2006, a Melbourne artist used a burnt Australian flag in an exhibition, and this was removed by the police after two days.

It wasn't actually illegal, or an offense to exhibit the burnt flag, so Coalition back-bencher Bronwyn Bishop stated publicly after the event that she would "introduce a private members' bill outlawing the burning of the Australian flag".

Not sure if the bill was ever passed, but the intention was quite explicit. Legislate not in favour of freedom (of expression) but in favour of protection (the flag).

Applaudanum:

09 Aug 2012 2:25:43pm

There is a difference, odd though it may sound.

When you use race to insult someone, you are aligning that person with a group of people who generally, or on average, have a lower social standing. It is intend as an insult. You can't insult white people in the same way because it is they who generally have the higher social standing. The insult loses its sting. This is why criticisms of bogans and rednecks works, because they are a subset of white people who generally have a lower social standing than 'polite' (for want of a better word) white people.

You are right, of course, that we should be equal under the law. Victims are victims, regardless of their background. Yet victims of racism tend to be from a minority group. If the perception is that the law favours minorities, perhaps people should band together to stamp out crimes against minorities. That'll put them pesky minorities in their place.

Gr8Ape:

Is it in the interest of free speech to allow someone to diminish the free speech of others?

If someone manages to build a consensus view that damages the credibility of a subset of society, then isn't that an attack on free speech?

I'm currently trying to teach my nephew the relationship between freedom and responsibility. The more responsible you demonstrate, the more freedom you're given. If that's a problem then there are rules to be applied, freedoms are revoked and responsibility assumed by another authority.

Mr Bolt would seem to have fallen foul of his inability to behave responsibly. Naughty, naughty boy!

Tim:

Gillard telling us "Don't write crap". Obvioulsy it is allright for her "talk" crap, obfuscate, spin, politalk and tell half-truths as if all that is acceptable just as long as you don't "write" crap.

I support the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 but I wonder whether, if the comments in the HWT abt the Aborignes (sorry, Indigenous Aust) were written by someone other than Bolt, would that author have faced the same inquisition by the media.

Freedom of speech is not the protector of democracy. It is a gift that is doled out in small dosages as a society develops and becomes more politically sophisticated enough to understand and appreciate its inherent values. The Internet has been a great assistance in democratising us and allowing the people to access & understand all sides of any argument and not just be limited to the opinons of media barons pursuing their own nefarious agendas.

Laws are enacted by Parliament and when (not if) Abbott becomes PM, if indeed the LNP repealed or modified certain laws, then so be it. I too believe that our democracy, in its current state, is mature enough to sustain a repeal of Section 18C in its current format.

The Abbott laws:

(1) Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference.

(2) Every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,whether within or outside Victoria and whether-

(a) orally; or

(b) in writing; or

(c) in print; or

(d) by way of art; or

(e) in another medium chosen by him or her.

(3) Special duties and responsibilities are attached to the right of freedom of expression and the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary-

(a) to respect the rights and reputation of other persons; or

(b) for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Length of tenure of a democracy has nothing to do with the citizens of that democracy being mature enough to not commit crime. And Bolt is an excellent example of a person who believed he had enough maturity to commit a crime without being held accountable.

Rita:

09 Aug 2012 10:31:15am

There are also extremely shocking and offensive descriptions of Aboriginal people, which I would classify as racial vilification, on Urban Dictionary. They are obviously written and posted up by extremely racist Australians.

I found them when doing some research on Aboriginal English in terms of etymology.I was searching for the definition of 'gubba' and there was a tab to click on Aboriginal next to it - so presumably lots of school students would find the offensive definitions when doing some research on Aboriginal word meanings.

I was so shocked by what I read that I emailed the Australian Human Rights Commission to ask that they pursue Urban Dictionary and those posting the comments (obviously Australians) for racial vilification. There was some correspondence on the issue, but basically I could not formally complain as I was not an Aboriginal person, even though I was deeply offended. They could not tell me what else I could do. I emailed ABC Indigenous to bring the matter to their attention, but they didnt respond.

I tried to contact Urban Dictionary, but the only way you can get through to them is to become an Urban Dictionary editor and then moderate material and I did not want to have anything to do with them.

So now perhaps with this Facebook material, someone could whip up a bit of a frenzy about Urban Dictionary too.

Rita:

09 Aug 2012 3:32:22pm

My point is that the offensive material was obviously posted by Australians and as racial villification is illegal here then they should be prosecuted. And they would have pursued the issue for me if I had been an Aboriginal person.

Lehan Ramsay:

If it's just people testing the facebook feedback loop by putting up that page, we should be able to get a sense of that shouldn't we? Some feeling that it's a bit cheesy, a bit formulaic?

Social media is full of people baiting each other. We somehow expect it in the format. But lets take that expectation and put it back on regular media. There is such a lot of baiting going on there, and often the participants are using serious social issues, institutions and regulations to do so.

Between what we see on the little institutions and the big institutions lies a battleground of people with something they want to belittle. They've picked up their skills from above and below. But they're often not aware, don't care, how much their battles are being picked up and used to erode what they themselves value. And often that's freedom.

BushGirl:

09 Aug 2012 10:36:30am

All of this chatter about who is tolerant of language which gives offence is laughable, especially when a couple of commentators assert that the ultra-right - people like Howard, Abbott, Jones, Bolt, and the other usual suspects - are tolerant. In fact all of those individuals have and do practise censorship. If one has a different philosophy or ideology from theirs, don't think for one moment that they are prepared to let free speech flourish, especially in the mass media.Garbage is the lot of them.And by the way, the Labour government, especially under Hawke, was no better.If your opinions did/do not accord with theirs, you will not be heard.

Oh, and BTW: "offensive language", whatever that might be is still a criminal offence.

Edge Hillbilly:

Doug of Armidale:

09 Aug 2012 10:42:25am

The ferocity level of political debate over the last 2 years?Short memory pilgrim. Go back to the commentary on JWH, or even Robert Gordon Menzies.There is nothing new in using words to denigrate and deceive.

libertarian:

09 Aug 2012 10:43:20am

The response to Bolt's claims with immediate court action gave even more credence to his accusations. Such responses occur when you are hitting where it hurts most and telling the truth. Governments come and go, however freedom of speech remains. Any Government legislation that conflicts with freedom speech is itself illegal. It is not a grey area. Bolt did not incite, nor threaten and therefore the courts were wrong to find any offense. As the founders of America continually pointed out, the population at any given point in time has an obligation to safeguard it's values against what they saw as the inevitable betrayal and tyranny of government. Bolt was therefore persecuted by our Government. The negative consequences of free speech will always be a tiny issue when compared with the benefits. It's when we allow the government to try and legislate out the small consequences that we are taking the wrong road and endangering the great benefits. Every choice in a society has positive and negative consequences and governments cannot change that, although being a collection of megalomaniacs, they will always try. It is our job to stop them and make them sit down before they hurt both themselves and us.

Alpo:

Lehan Ramsay:

09 Aug 2012 10:47:25am

Can we protect our own freedom? I don't think so, especially now. You can see how meaning and definition and concept twist themselves into something else, when you spend a bit of time looking at online media. Every day we find ourselves with a different belief on what freedom is. But I still don't that that things have changed so much - we always had a very tenuous grasp of the idea of freedom. When things speed up or slow down even a little it seems to make us weirdly aware of them, they become oddly sinister.

Lehan Ramsay:

09 Aug 2012 10:51:54am

Freedom jumps around all over the place, taking many forms, sometimes it's just what you have when something is lost to you. So you're free, then, they say, and you think: oh, is THAT what freedom is. The world spins frantically around, and then rights itself. Yet again.

Malcolm:

09 Aug 2012 10:59:24am

As usual Abbott is aiming at the dumb element of our population who, as far as I can see, have no idea or capability of actually ever uttering a coherent sentence or intention of exercising any of their "right" to free speech. The simple fact is that Bolt who is supremely convinced of his own intelligence got his facts wrong - that is what the judgement found. If he hadn't done sloppy research he wouldn't have lost the case. It is a very poor thing for Australia that a populist rabble rouser like Andrew Bolt, who can't even get his facts right, should be seen as the exemplar for free speech. I award that accolade to those who took him to court and won.

What it boils down to is that Abbott is using his populist brand of politics to foster a racist issue just as Pauline Hanson did - yet Abbott, the supreme hypocrite pursued a personal vendetta against her. Make no mistake Abbott is a weather vane, not a man of principle.

Edge Hillbilly:

Craig:

Ok everyone - should any 'freedom of speech' regulation allow or punish people who deliberately lie in order to achieve personal financial or political advantage?

Should such regulation penalize or exonerate media outlets who choose to republish known lies without identifying that they are lies?

Is 'freedom of speech' equivalent to 'freedom from consequences of speech' or simply the freedom to contribute publicly without being silenced while doing so?

Do people in the media have a greater, lessor or equivalent onus to other individuals to be objective because they are trained professionals with expensive national distribution systems at their disposal?

Harquebus:

09 Aug 2012 4:21:02pm

Most can spot a liar, we've evolved that ability. There will always be exceptionally good liars. Should free speech be curtailed because a few use their lying abilities for evil. Lies are difficult to maintain and are not an excuse to curtail speech.

lindsay:

09 Aug 2012 11:04:13am

There is a subtle difference between upsetting conservative christians and inciting racial hatred through inaccurate portrayals. The Church is quick to make comments often without regard to fact and often fiction. If there is truth in the belief where is the proof? and importnatly what about the hypocrisy disp[layed by religion.

Harquebus:

Overhead:

09 Aug 2012 11:06:25am

Here we have a discussion on Tony Abbott's plan to repeal Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act because, in his opinion, it restricts Free Speech.Meanwhile, over at Fairfax, it is being reported that Mr Abbott has "a Coalition taskforce examining tougher regulatory powers to take down offensive social media material". Offensive to whom? Restriction Of Free Speech anyone?I am confused. Does Abbott actually know what he stands for?

The Abbott laws:

Lehan Ramsay:

09 Aug 2012 11:15:11am

I don't know which direction the world moves in. But when our english speaking world seeks respite from turbulence it moves always to the right, it rights itself. Personally I think you'd have to do an awful lot of linguistic mastercooking to change that. Would it be a bit easier to just take it into account as the starting block, rather than launching into a submission each time it happens?

Lehan Ramsay:

Taswegian:

09 Aug 2012 11:25:25am

At the end of the day, Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt have a lot in common.

They both make things up to further their views and they both favour assertion over evidence.

Andrew Bolt is very good with words. He writes and writes and it all flows out of him. Unfortunately many of the things he writes are borne of his views, which don't even have a figleaf of evidence to back them up (e.g. AGW, refugees, aboriginality). Perhaps he gets caught up in the moment, words poor out of him that sound like they ought be true because they align with what he thinks, so he lets them through. When somebody questions them (as happened with his first pieces on 'professional aborigines') he takes that as validation of his correctness, because he disagrees with the person doing the questioning.

I'm not at all surprised that TA is out batting for Andrew Bolt, or that he is out batting against anti-racism laws. What will surprise me is if there is widespread community support for their views (community support as distinct from editorials in news limited newspapers...)

Robert TG:

B .Ford:

09 Aug 2012 11:33:21am

My previous comment on this subject of free speech is more applicable. Abbott's concept of free speech is to be able to call the PM a 'fat arse', to have his chief shock jock call for the PM 'to be put in a sack and dropped at sea', and for his moronic disciples to chant 'ditch the bitch'.

a man for all seasons:

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

voter:

09 Aug 2012 12:02:07pm

Went to the dentist this morning - usual checkup.

As soon as he had me at his mercy - mouth full of cotton wool, water doover etc - away he went. His views on the Olympics, the Federal Government, State Government, carbon tax, income tax - you name it. As with all dentists he occasionally asked me what I thought.

Fat chance - all I could do was nod or shake my head - for which I was reprimanded and told to keep still.

No free speech at the dentist.. And what did he have to say on the above subject?.

Well, that will have to remain between him and me. Wouldn't want to upset any of the usual role call of little diddums frequenting The Drum would we.

ScottBE:

09 Aug 2012 12:21:44pm

All of this is consistent in Mr Abbott's campaign to repeal everything that the Labor Govt has achieved. This is merely more of his reactionary, ill-considered albeit determined will to undo anything that may be considered a Rudd/Gillard legacy of good in Aus. His unshakeable belief that the only good that can be achieved MUST come, and ONLY come from the Lib/Nat coalition is of paramount importance (to him).

There is no inclusion in his speech of the likelihood of being able to achieve such legislation to repeal Labor Govt Acts. He will be facing a hostile Senate regardless of his House of Reps majority and this will remain until he calls a double dissolution.

As for freedom of speech; it is an illusory freedom, not set down in our Constitution or in any law. We do not have freedom of speech. Instead we have a responsibility to use our speech carefully. This is a good outcome of our legislation because it reduces the possibility of our exercise of speech causing hostility or division within our community thereby promoting a peaceful and respectful intercourse of communication.

Mr Abbott, like Mr Howard before him, likes war. His manifesto, "Battlelines", details his plans for war on many fronts. Such hostility toward everything and anything with which he disagrees is indicative of his Prime Ministerial style. We must be aware of the consequences of Mr Abbott becoming PM! We will have no peace, no justice for oppressed minorities, freedom of speech will be the purview of the wealthy (more than today). On the positive side, business will have complete freedom to mine your backyard, to express their views (more than today), and to own the media through which opinion is expressed. You can bet the ABC (that bastion of loonie leftie socialist crap) will lose even more funding than has been obvious with recent restrictions.

Yet just imagine for a moment Mr Abbott's reactions once he is PM. Any criticisms of the nature that he levels against Ms Gillard will have to be silenced. How to do this? and without the ability to pass legislation? Well, his friends will own most of the newspapers, influential radio and TV stations. Why not just ask them to not publish any further criticism (as the TV stations agreed to do with the latest GetUp! ad that criticised Woolies - they're quite willing to make an executive decision on ads!). Can you imagine? Freedom of speech will be more stringently curtailed under an Abbott Govt than we can imagine.

Freedom of speech is a double edged sword. If used carelessly it can wound the wielder more mortally than his intended victim. If we are to use this hefty and potentially lethal weapon of war, we must build great strength and mastery. If we are to use our speech for freedom, peace and justice there are no restrictions on our freedom. We must learn to appreciate this freedom and use it wisely and to value the few restrictions that are emplaced under law to pr

SmithW:

09 Aug 2012 12:27:01pm

It's Abbot proving what a dangerous fool he actually is and nothing more (the freedom (give me break!) wars speech). What a puppet! Unfortunately, add the other side of the floor and what you get is a regular Punch and Judy show.

If I had to grade this entire bunch (our Federal Parliament) I would give the greater majority a Fail, no grading on the curve here thanks! Go away you losers and don't even think about coming back, ALL of YOU!

Ricky Pannowitz:

09 Aug 2012 12:30:49pm

Andrew Bolt is a self promoting "brand" styled from Bill O'reilly. He approached Fox to pitch a Bill O'reilly type program and did not get it up. He now has the Bolt report, which is far from what the name would suggest; reporting as it is primarily factually devoid comment. Quite simply, Bolt is incapable of "critical thinking", factual analysis or accepting anything that deviates from his opinion.

Telling You:

09 Aug 2012 12:31:31pm

Abbott cares not who will get hurt or who will suffer so long as he can secure a majority in the house of reps. On this level Abbott is completely transparent whether he wants to be seen that way or not.

As far as repealing section 18C of the racial discrimination act it is in his best interests. This is because Abbott is predispositioned to what Rupert Murdoch requests of him and the use of Abbott is very compliant to Murdoch's agenda and world view. Bolt is just a pawn who sprouts right wing mantra along with the rest of the News Limited Henchpersons.

Abbott cares not for free speech but only for speech which should be available exclusively free only to Neo-conservatives. I'd say the Neo-Conservatives have more than enough clout via the MSM at present than to further warrant more "Orwellian" control.

The 18c racial discrimination act is an impediment to this Orwellian control that Abbott single mindedly pursues.If Abbott gets up Australia is in for one hell of a shock and it won't be pleasant.

Abbott is appealing to the ugly side of the Australian character but these same disposable plebs will be on the receiving end of an Abbott Regime.

Dingo:

09 Aug 2012 12:57:20pm

Radical Ibra-him Siddiq-Conlon launched a cruel Face-book attacking three men who had just been killed in Afganistan and accussed the 32 Australians who have died of being terrorists.He also said on Facebook "May they rot in hell"; one can only imagine the hurt and trauma the families of the dead soldiers .

My wise Father used to say, whilst I may not agree with what you said, I will die to defend your right to say it.

The Lawyers, politicians, policically correct can make laws and jump up and down all they like, Australians will believe and say what they like and when they like (with care so not as to end up in court) and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

And if the policically correct believe another law will change this; there dreaming.

GregM:

09 Aug 2012 1:01:52pm

What agenrally bizarre bunch of responses, mostly not dealing with the article they are allegedly commenting on.

The matter of the law under discussion is the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes some comments unlawful (under section 18C) and provides that such comments are not unlawful if they meet certain provisions (such as being fair comments, under section 18D).

The Racial Discrimiation Act does not provide for censorship, but rather can require appropriate remedial action if it is contravened. And only only matters of racial discrimination - which doesn't include right wing views, left wing views, red neck views, or any views that do not relate to race.

So most of this discussion features self-proclaimed Don Quixotes titlting at straw man windmills...

dobbo:

09 Aug 2012 1:02:31pm

Of course lurking behind the scenes in all of this is Abbott's fear (and NewsLtd's etc etc) that he'll lose his propaganda mouthpiece because Big Media will actually have to be accountable to a body other than the one they own (ie APC).

An independent body along the lines of Qld's Crime and Misconduct Commission is desperately needed. Let's face it Big Media and Big Business run the political agenda so claims about the risk of the Govt coming to control free speech are ludicrous.

Finally another example of the ways in which our "unbiased press works" and why they need to be made more accountable.

If you were an unbiased editor where would you put a story about the world's biggest gold mining company saying Australia's still a great place to do business despite the mining tax - no risk of mines being nationalised etc etc? Especially after all the wailing that's been reported from our poor long suffering miners.

Such a story might be pretty high in early news or maybe at least leading the business section? Nup. The story earns a small strip at the bottom of page 29 in yesterday's Courier Mail. That's how it's done folks. (As if you didn't know it.)

zach:

09 Aug 2012 1:02:33pm

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Or it should be. If my opinion is that all left handed blue eyed, blacked haired people born in antartica should be placed declared criminals because their birth has spoilt the antartica's pristine beauty; then I should be allowed to have that opinion, I should even be able to express that opinion when and wherever I liked.

If I say John Smith is a fraud then I need to evidence to back up that specific claim; this is where defamation would come into to play.

If I say John Smith, who has been divorced 5 times and is married to his sixth wife, whilst having an affair with his secretary, is, according to the bible a sinner, and going to spend eternity in hell THEN PROVIDED the facts are correct then I should have the right to express my opinion about the consequences of his action.

Now I do not know exactly what Andrew Bolt said, as it can longer be said, BUT from what I have gleaned I believe he should have been able to say it so therefore I would support some adjustment in the law.

Maxx:

09 Aug 2012 1:20:45pm

Perhaps the discussion should centre around the underlying message Andrew Bolt was trying to deliver. The "shock jocks" are just that, nothing more nothing less, but maybe we need them. In this age of truth management any issue (and the Bolt matter is a good example) that needs to engage the masses must involve the "shock jock" approach to overcome the deluge of rubbish being passed by the media. If "shock jocks" provide an opportunity for widespread discussion on any topic then this must be better than having a "managed/manipulated/filtered" discussion or worse, none at all.

evacox:

09 Aug 2012 1:31:38pm

I have no doubt my name will brong the frothers to misread my posting. Yes, I do support freedom of speech and serious limits on the State having power to suppress debate. However, as a child refugee from Hitler, I have some concerns when those with power and good access to the media have a free go to make false accusations against a category of people, particularly those who have experienced racism. We need to be particularly wary in economicaslly difficult social situations, like the present , when politicians from both major parties too often use scapegoating of outgroups to build populist strategies to attract voters.

Vilifications of relatively powerless groups with limited media access can lead to discrimination and even violence. We need some legal limits that can be invoked when damaging lies or gross inaccuracies are used or encouraged by the powerful against vulnerable groups. Restriction need to be scrutinised so it is not misused but we also need some constraints against the misuse of power imbalances that leads wider racism or other categorical prejudice. Massacres in Rwanda and Srebrenica remind us of the more recent vulnerability of stigmatised groups. Irresponsible abuse of outgroups needs to be monitored to ensure it doesn't become a pogrom but always with concern about the power of the scrutineers.

Abbotts Law:

Thanks Eva for that and I am also struck by the gross distortion used by the Abbott law advocates to portray vilification and hate speech as a freedom they should enjoy.

His Honour said:

'Mr Bolt wrote that Ms Cole was raised by her English-Jewish or English mother (1A-2; 2A-24). That statement is factually inaccurate because Ms Coles Aboriginal grandmother also raised Ms Cole and was highly influential in Ms Coles identification as an Aboriginal. He wrote that Ms Cole rarely saw her part-Aboriginal father (1A-3). That statement is factually incorrect...'

The freedom to lie, vilify, smear, is not one to be embraced, although I note Joseph Goebbels and Hitler had no compunction in their pursuit of the freedom of speech as per their definition of what that entailed.

I've just finished reading some of the propaganda of Goebbels and was struck by the similarity of fictions used to push a political agenda. A refresher of the arguments used to justify racial intolerance by those regimes you've mentioned is a must for those who are teetering on the abyss of accepting hate speech as a legitimate weapon to use against those about whom they have personal issues.

Robert:

09 Aug 2012 1:33:03pm

Freedom of Speech,Right to bear arms,I thought these were rights under the USA constitution. Could someone please advise where in Australia do we have the right to free speech. I do not want to go down the USA road, as soon as you legislate some right in, the rights of othere are lost. Let common law solve these issues - not purported "Rights".

Stephen:

09 Aug 2012 5:06:29pm

From Wikipedia,,,,,,Interesting last line,,,,,

Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution at common law per Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth.

In 1992 the High Court of Australia judged in the case of Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth that the Australian Constitution, by providing for a system of representative and responsible government, implied the protection of political communication as an essential element of that system. This freedom of political communication is not a broad freedom of speech as in other countries, but rather a freedom whose purpose is only to protect political free speech. This freedom of political free speech is a shield against government prosecution, not a shield against private prosecution (civil law). It is also less a causal mechanism in itself, rather than simply a boundary which can be adjudged to be breached. Despite the court's ruling, however, not all political speech appears to be protected in Australia and several laws criminalise forms of speech that would be protected in other democratic countries such as the United States.

In 1996, Albert Langer was imprisoned for advocating that voters fill out their ballot papers in a way that was invalid.[6] Amnesty International declared Langer to be a prisoner of conscience.[7] The section which outlawed Langer from encouraging people to vote this way has since been repealed and the law now says only that it is an offence to print or publish material which may deceive or mislead a voter.

The Howard Government re-introduced sedition law, which criminalises some forms of expression. Media Watch ran a series on the amendments on ABC television.[8]

In 2006, CSIRO senior scientist Graeme Pearman was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on global warming.[9] The Howard Government was accused of limiting the speech of Pearman and other scientists.

RW:

09 Aug 2012 1:37:45pm

Andrew Bolt is a journalist with far more clout and far better opportunities to express his views than most of us. Therefore, with that privilege also comes responsibility. Responsibility to be fair and impartial. The problem with the likes of he and Alan Jones and Piers Akerman, they sprout their bombastic views, insulting and hurting all and sundry in the process, then as soon as they are challenged they want to hide behind free speech.Free speech is a means to an end, it is not an absolute in itself. Free speech exists to help maintain freedom, fairness, and a quality of life in our society. It does not exist simply for its own benefit. It is a fine line that we need to constantly make sure we fine tune. The right to free speech versus the harm and hurt that it may cause. The likes of Andrew B olt and Alan Jones have no interest in the noble philosophy of free speech. They are merely using their position of privilege to push a particular political barrow hurting many in the process, which will in the end serve their own selfish interest, without any attempt at impartiality, and without any concern to what is good and healthy for society.

Star Hash Four:

Bluey:

09 Aug 2012 4:11:05pm

Spoken like a true Philistine!Freedom Of Speech is NOT in question, an evolved and cultured society debate issues with facts and class.What you, coward Bolt and halfwitted Abbott want is debate to be reduced to a footy crowd sitting in the outter yelling trash at the Umpire.And what part of the Judge's verdict in Bolt's case didn't you understand? Factually wrong or intentionally used wrong facts, purposely used to be nasty and misguided? What has Freedom Of Speech got to do with Bolt's deliberate use of LIES and misinformation?Typical of Liberal cheer squad to gloss over FACTS. News LTD didn't appeal why? Cause Bolt was GUILTY.Abbott is suring his bets for favourable Media support by grubby News LTD.Cheap stunt, by a cheap man leading a cheap Party.

Harquebus:

09 Aug 2012 2:23:32pm

Words do not make people bleed, unstable people do that. A person should be able to say what they think regardless and idiots who respond violently should be put in jail. Suppressing speech makes it impossible to argue for or against suppressed thoughts and ideas.

The Abbott laws:

09 Aug 2012 7:07:38pm

Thankfully laws exist that don't allow people to lie smear and tell untruths. The Judge had this to say about the defence relief upon by the guilty party.

'Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times relied upon the heading of Part IIA to contend that the operation of Part IIA is restricted to racist behaviour based upon racial hatred. I disagree. The legislative history of Part IIA and the words utilised in Part IIA show that contention to be incorrect. No decision of this Court has interpreted Part IIA to be limited to the incitement of racial hatred. Part IIA has a broader field of operation. Infused by the values of human dignity and equality, the objectives of Part IIA extend to promoting racial tolerance and protecting against the dissemination of racial prejudice. Part IIA is also concerned to protect the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is an essential component of a tolerant and pluralistic democracy. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act exempts from being unlawful, offensive conduct based on race, where that conduct meets the requirements of section 18D and may therefore be regarded as a justifiable exercise of freedom of expression. In that way, Part IIA seeks to find a balance between freedom of expression and freedom from racial prejudice and intolerance based on race.'

The Abbott filth is thankfully what our laws are designed to protect us from, and naturally he wants to remove human rights and protection.

Bb:

09 Aug 2012 2:31:07pm

Seeing everything as a war and using the term 'War' for everything is a pretty far right wing article of faith, and this shows how dangerously right wing Abbott really is, although this is large buried in the Australian media.

There is typically a religious element, as the concept and practice are copied from the USA and its malignant intermixing of right wing politics and religion. Abbott as religious right and, if given a huge win, as arrogant as Campbell Newman.

Abbott has form when Health Minister - remember the absurd battle over control of a hospital in Tasmania and the general constant battling with the States on health. Too much testosterone, mixed with ideology. Scary. It wasn't only him axing the Health budget at a time of surplus, but even that was probably ideological warring as well in trying to drive the public health system into problems, triggering people to move to private cover.

Do we want a constant ideologically-driven battling again? Probably even worse than the Howard era, where the right wing brought it down even to attacking a cherished children's author as her model for learning to read was decreed wrong. Ugly.

Another symptom too - the mouthing of select corporate vested interests is a hard right shibboleth. In this case, of course, it is Murdoch's interests as the media outlet trying to pretend that enquiry and reasonable regulation are fundamental issues of principle when what they and Abbott mean are they impact on the sneaking that generates tabloid stories and on the 'right' of idiots to spout off with whatever they like.

Geoff:

09 Aug 2012 2:33:06pm

I want to be able to offend, insult or humilate anyone I want, so long as I do not misrepresent facts. Offense and insult are entrely relative and totally internal experiences. It is impossible to avoid offending everyone. Humiliation requires that there is something to be ashamed about and that the person is ashamed about it. It is not only possible, but reasonable, for a person to make themselves immune to attempts at offense, insult and humiliation that are based in fact. Those not based in fact may be another matter, especially with regards to humiliation, as they can be used to colour the opinion of others.

I do not want to be able to intimidate or descriminate based on generalisations about a particular type of person, without evidence that the particular person lives up to those generalisations. Such actions would be unfair as they are not based in fact. Therefore the unifying mesure of the permissability of actions with regards to others should be that they are based in fact, where those actions have the ability to limit freedom of the person in question through acts of the instigator or acts of others. Personal insults would be permitted but defamation without basis would not. Descrimination without basis would also be prohibited.

It would seem to me that the act in its current form goes too far, even with the exemption clause pointed out by Jonothan Green. However, article's like Bolt's should still attract legal consequences. It would be interesting to hear Mr Abbot's position on this if the media were dominated by the left-wing, instead of the right.

VoterBentleigh:

09 Aug 2012 2:34:39pm

At least One Nation's prejudices were open and clear for all to see. The Opposition's prejudices are covered in cellophane (and Tony Abbott has the gall to call the PM untrustworthy). Andrew Bolt lied about certain people whose political views he did not like. He also stereotyped Aborigines, but significantly, Andrew Bolt did not suggest that The Honourable Ken Wyatt (Liberal Member for Hasluck) did not represent Aboriginal people. This is no different from the way Fascist Germany stereotyped their own and other races for their political ends. By their intemperate language and exaggeration, the Opposition have virtually conducted hate campaigns against conservationists, the public service and people who receive entitlements. They are now focusing on indigenous Australians and newly arrived immigrants.

RupertsHackers:

09 Aug 2012 2:37:01pm

Yes dogwhistling is leadership Abbott-style, where the political ends always justify the means, and particularly if it provokes hatred and villification of vulnerable people along the way. Meanwhile his Tory band of vacant followers follow their Abbott to the promised land; namely the American deep south of the 50's. Alleluliah!

Clotho:

davies:

09 Aug 2012 3:02:17pm

Andrew Bolt cant hurt the feelings of these white-coloured Aborigines under section 18C but Bess Price can say to Amnesty International

"Your organisation sent a white blackfella from Tasmania, a wealthy man, and a woman from Victoria claiming to be indigenous who never met me or tried to talk to my people and you believed what they told you, she said.

Your organisation treated me and my people with contempt and you still do. Your organisation is undemocratic and racist. "

Jezza67:

09 Aug 2012 3:04:16pm

Why does Australia need the RDA (Sections 18c and d included) in the first place? People suffer discrimination for all kinds of reasons. We have Common Law to prevent such offences, but, for some reason, certain sections of our population are singled out for special treatment.

There are libel laws and defamation laws.

"If it's alright for David Marr, for instance, to upset conservative Christians, in his attempt to have them see the error of their ways, why is it not alright for Andrew Bolt to upset activist Aboriginals to the same end?"

JMJ:

09 Aug 2012 3:17:39pm

Nice piece Jonathon. As for Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act outlawing racial hatred, it relies on Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. As for Abbott's view, well it is just another ill-conceived thought bubble.

Reinhard:

09 Aug 2012 3:53:01pm

Let's be very clear about this, what Tony Abbott is defending is not free speech, it is hate-speech. Deliberate or not Bolt made false accusations against indigenous Australians that would also qualify as defamation.Here are the Facts:In his articles Bolt claimed that Larissa Behrendt "has also worked as a professional Aborigine ever since leaving Harvard Law School, despite looking almost as German as her father." when Behrendt's father was actually born in Australia to an Aboriginal mother, and her grandfather, despite his German name came from England.

Bolt also claimed that Anita Heiss "made a decision to be Aboriginal which was lucky, given how its helped her career and that she had won plum jobs reserved for Aborigines at Koori Radio, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and Macquarie Universitys Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies." What Bolt neglected to mention was that Ms Heiss is an established writer and highly qualified, with a PhD in Media and Communication, and that in fact none of the jobs he mentioned were actually reserved or identified Aboriginal positions, the Koori Radio role was actually voluntary and unpaid.

So it comes down to your beliefs, do you believe that Bolt was being deliberately inflamatory or just plain lazy? l know what I believe...

Harquebus:

09 Aug 2012 3:59:52pm

Here's another take on why we are losing our freedoms.

[In response to this question by Bill Moyers: What do you see happening to the idea of dignity to human species if this population growth continues at its present rate?] "It's going to destroy it all. I use what I call my bathroom metaphor. If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have what I call freedom of the bathroom, go to the bathroom any time you want, and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And this to my way is ideal. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up, you have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, aren't you through yet, and so on. And in the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, but it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies." - Isaac Asimov

snikdad:

09 Aug 2012 4:48:01pm

Jonathan Green, spectactularly missing the point : 'It's probably fair to say that for Andrew Bolt to complain of curbs to his right to free speech is a fairly self-evident absurdity, given the cross-platform media acreage at his disposal in any given week.'Taking legal advice, Andrew Bolt no longer comments on matters involving Aboriginal identity. He has been silenced on this particular subject, as a result of the lawfare waged against him by the enemies of free speech.

Cherna:

09 Aug 2012 5:12:43pm

How sad is it to have any journo silenced. Its another opinion stifled and another opinion we'll not get to hear.

It cannot be helpful to hear of any one in this country being silenced on any topic. If a writer or commentator expresses poor opinion the public will be quick enough to criticise; and if the writer ignores the public then the public will in turn ignore his writing. Too idealistic maybe but isnt that the point of free speech?

The Abbott laws:

Matthew Of Canberra:

09 Aug 2012 4:50:45pm

"The Coalition will repeal section 18C in its current form"

He won't repeal it. He might change it, though, hence the "in its current form" rider. The problem with repealing it is that the people who wanted it in the first place still do want it. There'll be an inquiry, a committee, some new wording with be proposed to try to prevent Important People from being caught in the net, maybe raise the bar a bit and include a requirement of some sort of threat, but I can't see that section being removed completely.

The oppo's been in "just say anything" mode for a couple of years, now. Getting the lodge back is all that matters.

John51:

09 Aug 2012 4:52:53pm

Well it appears under Abbott and his demand for so called freedom of speech that we should put up on the mantle the ideal of an uncivil society. An uncivil society ideals are the right to call each other all sorts of names, to make the most outrageous accusations and lies against each other. All of this so we can live up to the ideal of freedom of speech.

Truth what is that. No truth is to be despised. Nope, misinformation, spin and lies, those are our right, just so we can maintain this ideal of freedom speech. If lies spin and misinformation gets you what you what; gets you where you want to go, go for it, or so it seems.

It seems instead of parents bringing their kids up with the ideal to tell the truth, to be factual in what they say, to be civil to each other, they now are to teach them that it is their right to lie. And if it works for them to get what they want, than that is what they should do. This it seems is to be set down as the new cultural norm all in the aim of free speech. After all if it is the right of Bolt, Abbott and others to treat the facts with utter disdain why should everyone else not do the same?

After all, greed was given the nod to become the cultural norm for Bankers and Wall Street. And now within our society we are to see outrageous commentary and outright lies to become the cultural norm all in the aim of Freedom of Speech. Instead of Freedom of Speech being the defender of democracy it is now the right to say whatever you like no matter its relationship to the truth or to civility.

Carol:

09 Aug 2012 6:00:59pm

Did anyone else read Andrew Bolt's column today in the Daily Lies - sorry I mean the Daily Telegraph. It goes along the lines that because of Julia Gillard's carbon tax, elderly people are dying because they can't afford electricity. Didn't the carbon tax only start in July - they wouldn't have got their electricity bill yet, would they?

Also, does anyone else understand why Andrew Bolt says that there were no stolen generation - why does he claim this? And why does he go on about climate change when most of the world's leading scientists, including the CSIRO says its happening. Where does he get his information from - some special book that is the truth and everyone else is wrong!

IB:

09 Aug 2012 6:21:09pm

In this world none of us are free to do anything we like. So we have to draw boundaries. For me, people should be totally free to speak, but not act. Whenever anyone expresses an opinion they say a great deal about themselves. Any offended parties need to develop a resilience to opinions they do not like. If some people wish to incite violence the authorities need to be vigilant and be ready to intercede if necessary. I would rather hear contrary opinions, so that I knew who I am dealing with, rather than have them suppressed by law. I am not a fan of Andrew Bolt, but also not of the court decision against him. It only made him a martyr for the cause.

Terry:

09 Aug 2012 7:32:29pm

As the judgement said, the decision was made because of the tone or manner in which the article was written. That a few facts were wrong was not critical. To say that the "fair comment" exemption was nullified for "cynical dishonesty" is, in itself, cynically dishonest.

The whole of Mr Green's approach to the curtailment of Mr Bolt's freedom of speech seems to be "So what?". Mr Green dislikes his views, so he doesn't care. The article begins with the ludicrous point that Mr Bolt has the opportunity to talk about other things in his blogs and articles.

As long, of course, if he is not dragged before the courts again because someone claims to be offended.

If an article is libellous - sue. If you disagree - put up your arguments. Let us not make laws to stop people saying things others find offensive.

I find many of the posts on the Drum breathtaking in their derogatory attitudes to men. I am offended by them and no doubt they were intended to offend me. But I would never try to prevent the misguided idiots who post them having their say.

Mr Green and his many followers are the merely the latest in a long line of those who attempt to control what people think by limiting what they can say. As the Pauline Hanson episode revealed, pretending that people don't like things doesn't change their minds: it just makes them feel ignored.

Far better to have an open discussion. Anyone who believes that "race" is a determinant should be easy to destroy in an argument, as will anyone who thinks all cultures are equally praiseworthy.

annie:

09 Aug 2012 7:47:16pm

I agree with several comments made previously here: Abbott is above all an opportunist who will take every chance to garner a few more votes where he scents an advantage. Here he is certainly appealing to those closet Hansonites to whom Howard made several successful appeals. They exist across the social spectrum. But mentioning Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt as examples of people whose free speech was in jeopardy from the dangerous Labor government was perhaps a mistake. It does suggest he welcomes the ability of those particular individuals to give free range to opinions which have been widely condemned as deliberately offensive to certain groups and individuals. Some have pointed out, correctly, that this stance could come back to bite him, if for instance, extreme left wingers one day express intemperate and arguably slanderous opinions about, say, white males ( not likely really), conservative religious believers, members of a Liberal Government, etc etc. He doesn't really care though, because it's all about winning an election....

The nose:

09 Aug 2012 8:38:54pm

Abbott is a populist politician, but like all populist politicians they have a short shelf life . Abbott is becoming desperate, and ist throwing caution to the wind and going for broke, claiming that all electricity price encreases are caused by the carbon tax.His colleagues are starting to realise he has lost the plot and I will predict he will be replaced within six months.

Cro-Mag:

09 Aug 2012 9:44:27pm

The current laws are a joke. I would prefer more civility all round, but as we become a more diverse (and therefore, fragmented) society our free speech laws are going to need to be more robust, as in allowing different people to speak freely. At the moment this is all approached as if it was a football match - if you are from the left, and you agree with the speaker (your 'side'), then it is robust free speech - same goes if you are from the right. If you disagree with the speaker, then of course the government should step in and curb offensive speech - principle or good governance don't come into it, it's all about barracking for your side.

If Catherine Deveney and Larissa Behrendt don't peddle 'hate speech', then neither do Allan Jones or Kyle Sandilands (personally, I think all four say horrible things and are to be avoided, but I don't disupte their right to say what they think). If your right to say something depends on your sex, ethnicity or any other such qualifier (with others penalised for saying exactly the same thing) then the laws are a joke. What is the federal government going to do next, publish a guide which tells us all who can say what, listed by personal category and comment?

Anything short of incitement to violence should be allowed - if someone is defamed, they can prove it in court, but causing offence should not be sufficient to do this.

Kingbast:

09 Aug 2012 10:39:06pm

I agree with Abbott that freedom of expression is being increasingly threatened in this country by those who advocate a politically correct agenda at all costs. We should be encouraging freedoms not curtailing them, even the freedom to be distasteful. Offensive or threatening material in a criminal sense is another matter entirely.Sadly there is a fine line between questionable taste and what could be interpreted as criminal offence and much of that grey area is highly subjective. There is now a viable segment of legal practice actively seeking people who may be offended by one thing or another. This is not a productive way forward. My view is that if something is criminal it should be treated under criminal law. If it is merely questionable, offensive or false then let it be aired and challenge it rather than run away from the truth and call the cops because you are offended. Grow up. One wonders about the attitude of those who leap to the support of indigenous Australians re the recent issue or even the Bolt issue and whether they would advocate freedom of speech in the case of Assange or whether Wikileaks should also be subject to censorship. There is a good case for this as the Wikileaks issue actually put people's lives at risk. The Aboriginal website and the Bolt issue merely caused offence in the eyes of some very thin skinned activists backed up by a bunch of pro bono lawyers trying to make a name for themselves whilst maximising their feel good factor. I think we should all harden up a bit and face facts.

The Abbott Laws:

10 Aug 2012 9:02:20am

Bromberg J:

'Section 18D exempts from being unlawful, conduct which has been done reasonably and in good faith for particular specified purposes, including the making of a fair comment in a newspaper. It is a provision which, broadly speaking, seeks to balance the objectives of s 18C with the need to protect justifiable freedom of expression.'

The campaign to justify hate speech by the right has not convinced their Honours yet and hopefully it won't. As for Abbott changing the law when elected, let's wait and see.

Chookman:

10 Aug 2012 4:35:46am

It appears to me that there is a word that seems to be omitted by the defenders of Andrew Bolt regarding this issue.The right to Freedom of speech has a RESPONSIBILITY - and that is where the problem lies. In expressing his freedom of speech Mr Bolt failed in his RESPONSIBILITY regarding facts and manner of journalistic expression. This can be seen in the judgement "they contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language"This is a case of "why let the truth get in the way of the story".

Moscow's words and actions — including the alleged poisoning of a former spy — are not the results of random aggression but rather fall into distinct patterns that can help us anticipate Russia's next moves under Vladimir Putin.